to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 113 S. Ct. 2849, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1993) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932)). Each crime must require proof of an element the other does not. The elements required to prove unauthorized possession of a firearm under title 14, section 2253(a) of the Virgin Islands Code (“Section 2253”) are (1) that the defendant was unauthorized to possess a firearm, or did not have a license for the weapon; and (2) that the defendant had at least constructive possession of the firearm. See United States v. McKie, 112 F.3d 626, 630, 36 V.I. 367 (3d Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>); Hunt v. Virgin Islands, 46 V.I. 534, 539-40
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 a defendant possessed a firearm in connection with a crime when the firearm was kept in a car across the street from where the defendant was selling drugs holding that the government must prove the defendant knew of the features of the firearm that brought it within the scope of the act 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 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