recognized an innocent possession defense; however, we can find no case in which a circuit has squarely applied the innocent possession defense to a § 922(g)(1) charge, where the elements of a justification defense are not present. See United States v. Ali, 63 F.3d 710, 716 n. 7 (8th Cir.1995) (declining to address whether the defense was available because defense counsel failed to seek a proper instruction on the innocent possession theory, but noting that its case law did not foreclose such a defense); United States v. Elder, 16 F.3d 733, 738 (7th Cir.1994) (concluding that although the innocent possession defense presented a “novel issue,” it need not decide the issue because the evidence did not support the defense); cf. United States v. Wolak, 923 F.2d 1193, 1198 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). There are reported state court judgments,
holding that unpleaded affirmative defense was properly considered by the district court where plaintiff had notice of the defense and an opportunity to respond holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity recognizing defense in securities case recognizing an innocent possession defense though the defense in that case is more properly considered a justification defense as life and limb were arguably at stake holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second