evidence, to establish the first element. As defendant correctly points out, there is no direct evidence that he intentionally obliterated the identification number on his pistol. We also note that the record contains no direct evidence that the obliteration was done for an unlawful purpose. A lack of direct evidence, however, does not entitle a defendant to a judgment of acquittal. As the statute itself provides, inferences drawn from the attendant circumstances of a crime can be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, there is evidence that defendant was in possession of the pistol in question. Defendant admitted that he purchased the gun and had it in his vehicle. See State v. Miller, 238 Or 411, 413-14, 395 P2d 159 (1964) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, defendant’s intent to obliterate
holding that the placement of a loaded weapon on the drivers seat of a car carrying drug instrumentalities was sufficient evidence of possession in furtherance of a crime recognizing innocent possession defense to a charge of criminal weapons possession holding a knife to the drivers neck holding that a drivers knowledge that there are concealable weapons in the car available for the drivers use is evidence of possession holding that where uncontroverted evidence rebuts a presumption that a defendant consented to the drivers use of his vehicle the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law