firearm for unlawful purposes would disqualify him or her altogether. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2). Moreover, since Application Note 6 includes “the location and circumstances of possession and actual use” as relevant surrounding circumstances, evidence that the defendant used the firearms for purposes unrelated to sporting or collection, even if otherwise lawful, would tend to show that the defendant did not possess the firearms “solely for lawful sporting purposes.” We observe, however, without deciding the question, that there is authority that such evidence of lawful, non-sporting use may not necessarily preclude a defendant from establishing, in the totality of the circumstances, that he possessed a firearm solely for lawful sporting purposes. See, e.g., Collins, 313 F.3d at 1256 (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Miller, 547 F.3d 718,
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 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 to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used holding that use of a firearm included the exchange of a gun for drugs and noting that simply because use as a weapon is the first example to come to mind when the phrase uses  a firearm is uttered does not preclude us from recognizing that there are other uses that qualify as well holding that two isolated uses of a firearm as collateral to secure vehicle repairs need not preclude eligibility if defendant otherwise demonstrated possession solely for lawful sporting purposes