Can the government establish the interstate commerce element in a § 922(g) prosecution by showing that a single interchangeable part of a firearm traveled across state lines or does the government have to show that an entire firearm traveled across state lines?

question presented is: Can the government establish the interstate commerce element in a § 922(g) prosecution by showing that a single interchangeable part of a firearm traveled across state lines or does the government have to show that an entire firearm traveled across state lines? I. After Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), ina prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the government must prove that the defendant knew he had been “convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” The definition of “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” contains a restoration exception. The question presented is: Where the defendant genuinely, but mistakenly, believed that his civil rights had been restored within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), can the government meet its burden of proof by showing that his rights had not, in fact, been restored, or must it prove that he knew they had not been restored? i