possess a firearm for the requisite proof of lack of authorization to possess ammunition — particularly in view of the fact there is no apparent way under Virgin Islands law to obtain permission to possess ammunition. We will address one final argument made by the government, namely that Daniel failed to raise as an affirmative defense that he was authorized to possess a firearm under one of the exemptions to Section 2256. We have previously acknowledged that “requirfing] the government to prove in each prosecution that none of the statutory exceptions to the firearm license requirement are satisfied ... would conflict with our obligation to construe statutes sensibly and avoid constructions which yield absurd or unjust results.” United States v. McKie, 112 F.3d 626, 630 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). This analysis is inapposite to the present
holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense holding that the government was required to prove that the defendant lacked a license to possess a firearm but not that the defendant possessed the firearm for any duration of time holding that notwithstanding that virgin islands law allows a twentyfour hour grace period in which a person bringing a firearm into the virgin islands to report such fact the government is not required to prove that the defendant possessed a firearm for more than twentyfour hours because duration of possession is an affirmative defense holding that in a prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon defendants assault with the firearm the evening before the charged offense was necessary to complete the story and prove that brown possessed the gun holding  922g is not unconstitutional as applied to a defendant who possessed a firearm only intrastate when the government demonstrated that the firearm moved in interstate commerce