With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". under section 776.012 (defense of person), section 776.013 (home protection or where person is standing in a place they have the right to be), and section 776.031 (defense of others). In granting the original motion to dismiss, the trial court erroneously concluded that Hill was entitled to the presumption of section 776.018(1) and immunity under section 776.032, despite the fact that he was a felon in possession of an illegal firearm which was used in response to his attack. We maintain our conclusion in State v. Hill that possession of a firearm by a convicted felon constitutes “unlawful activity” which makes Hill ineligible to receive the benefit of self-defense immunity from prosecution derived from section 776.013(3). Accord Little v. State, 111 So.3d 214, 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, Hill’s present motion for

A: holding that double jeopardy precludes dual convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and felon in possession of separate ammunition because section 790231 florida statutes prohibits possession of  any firearm ammunition or electric weapon or device emphasis in original
B: holding that defendant need not establish that he was not engaged in unlawful activity under section 776012
C: holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy
D: holding that a person engaged in an unlawful activity such as possession of an illegal firearm by a felon would not be entitled to claim immunity under section 7760321 based on the use of force as permitted in section 7760133
D.