When defendant denied ownership and possession of a handgun, what is the effect of the prosecution's evidence that the handgun was not registered to him?

The record indicates that because defendant was denying ownership and possession of the handgun, he was not seriously disputing the allegation in count 2 that the handgun was not registered to him. This is not surprising given the stipulation that as a result of his prior misdemeanor conviction, defendant could not lawfully possess a firearm for 10 years. His prior misdemeanor conviction coupled with his denial of the present firearm possession charges made it unlikely that defense counsel would want to cast doubt on her client's defense by objecting to the prosecution's evidence that the gun was not registered to him. (See, e.g., Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305, 328 ["It is unlikely that defense counsel will insist on live testimony whose effect will be merely to highlight rather than cast doubt upon the forensic analysis. Nor will defense attorneys want to antagonize the judge or jury by wasting their time with the appearance of a witness whose testimony defense counsel does not intend to rebut in any fashion."].)