Does the rule of lenity apply to a defendant convicted of one count of ammunition possession in violation of section 30305?

^9. The rule of lenity "applies '"only if the court can do no more than guess what the legislative body intended; there must be an egregious ambiguity and uncertainty to justify invoking the rule."' [Citation.] In other words, 'the rule of lenity is a tie-breaking principle, of relevance when "'two reasonable interpretations of the same provision stand in relative equipoise ....'"'" (People v. Manzo (2012) 53 Cal.4th 880, 889.)

^10. Our determination that defendant may only stand convicted of one count of ammunition possession in violation of section 30305 does not impact our conclusion that the trial court did not err in imposing a concurrent sentence on count 4, because the fact remains that defendant's possession of ammunition encompasses additional ammunition beyond the five rounds loaded in the revolver. Therefore, the reasoning underlying the holdings in People v. Lopez, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at page 138 and People v. Sok, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at page 100 does not apply here.