With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of possession. See id. It follows logically that removing a person’s right of possession in an object does not necessarily remove all of his property interests in that object. Therefore, even though the Maryland convicted felon statute — section 445(d) — may have removed convicted felons’ possessory interests in regulated firearms, it did not remove all of their property interests. A convicted felon such as Serio may have no right to possess regulated firearms, but he may retain a constitutionally-protected property interest in those weapons. See Cooper v. City of Greenwood, 904 F.2d 302, 304-06 (5th Cir.1990)(finding that convict ed felon had ownership interest in seized firearms for purposes of due process analysis); United States v. Seifuddin, 820 F.2d 1074, 1078-79 (9th Cir.1987)(<HOLDING>); Covington v. Winger, 562 F.Supp. 115, 123-24

A: holding that convicted felon had nonpossessory property interest in seized firearms sufficient to confer standing to contest forfeiture
B: holding that allegation of cipa violation is sufficient to confer standing
C: holding that a passenger who lacked a property or possessory interest in the automobile or property seized lacked standing to challenge a search of the car
D: holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property
A.