196, 209, 547 S.E.2d 899, 906 (2001). Code § 18.2-308.2(A) provides as follows, in relevant part: It shall be unlawful for (i) any person who has been convicted of a felony ..., whether such conviction or adjudication occurred under the laws of this Commonwealth, or any other state, the District of Columbia, the United States or any territory thereof, to knowingly and intentionally possess or transport any firearm ... as defined by § 18.2-308.1.... Any p legislature’s determination, in enacting the statute, “that certain individuals — felons—are unfit to possess firearms, even for lawful purposes.” Armstrong, 263 Va. at 582, 562 S.E.2d at 144; see also Alger v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 255, 590 S.E.2d 563 (2004). Cf. Esteban v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 605, 609-10, 587 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, whether Branch was “confused”
holding that an indictment that omitted the mens rea element was sufficient because it cited the applicable statutes which informed the defendant of the elements of the charged offenses holding that conditional intent sufficient to satisfy specific intent mens rea for solicitation to commit murder offense holding that the legislature intended code  1823081b to create strict criminal liability subject to certain specific exceptions for any person possessing a firearm on school property thus no instruction on the element of mens rea required holding that the enhanced minimum sentence for discharging a firearm requires no additional mens rea specific to the firing of the gun holding that a mens rea of unlawfully in the indictment was sufficient because the indictment referenced the applicable statute which required a reckless mens rea