possession” by a convicted felon. In doing so, the court relied upon decisions from the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits, which have held that placing a convicted felon’s fire arms “in the possession of a [third party] in trust” necessarily constitutes constructive possession by the felon. United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 971, 977 (11th Cir.2005); see United States v. Felici, 208 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir.2000). By contrast, the Seventh Circuit and, to a more limited extent, the Fifth Circuit have suggested that a convicted felon may devise an arrangement in which he recovers the value of the seized firearms without contravening Section 922(g)(1). United States v. Miller, 588 F.3d 418, 419-20 (7th Cir.2009); see also Cooper v. City of Greenwood, 904 F.2d 302, 305-06 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). On balance, we are persuaded by the Seventh
holding that a convicted felon is not entitled to have firearms returned held in trust or sold for his profit holding that a convicted felon may sue a municipal government to recover the value of seized firearms that he owned holding that a convicted felon is not entitled to return of firearms or to have firearms held in trust by third party holding the defendant was a convicted felon within the purview of the federal statute prohibiting the receiving and possession of firearms by a convicted felon where the defendants prior conviction was based on an idaho state probated sentence holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy