How have the courts interpreted a parolee's restriction on possessing a firearm?

The parties agree that the trial court erred but disagree on the proposed remedy. Citing People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 500-502 (Hall), the attorney general concedes that "appellant's weapons restriction should have been construed to read that appellant 'shall not [knowingly] own, use, have access to, or have under [his] control: (a) any type of firearm, . . . or any ammunition which could be used in a firearm . . . .' " The attorney general also concedes that the trial court failed properly to consider this mens rea requirement. But the attorney general would have us remand so that the trial court can now consider "whether appellant willfully violated [his] parole."