Federal Charges for Guns and Drugs Together

Federal Charges for Guns and Drugs Together

The gun doesn’t have to be used. It doesn’t have to be loaded. It doesn’t have to be in the same room as the drugs. If federal prosecutors can connect a firearm to your drug activity – ANY connection, no matter how thin – you face a mandatory minimum sentence that runs CONSECUTIVE to whatever you get for the drugs. Not concurrent. Consecutive. Your drug sentence ends, and THEN your gun sentence begins. Five years minimum. No exceptions.

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. We created this page because 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is one of the most devastating charges in federal law, and most people don’t understand how it works until it’s too late. A gun in your bedroom while drugs are in your car can add five to thirty years to your sentence. Years you serve AFTER completing your drug sentence. The judge has no discretion. “Mandatory minimum” means exactly what it says.

The question everyone asks is “how can a gun I never used add years to my sentence?” Because federal law doesn’t require you to use it. It doesn’t require you to touch it. It requires “possession in furtherance” of drug trafficking – and prosecutors have stretched that standard so far that owning a gun while dealing drugs is basically automatic liability. That gun you inherited from your grandfather sitting in a closet? “In furtherance” – because drug dealers “typically” arm themselves.

What 924(c) Actually Means

18 U.S.C. § 924(c) creates criminal liability for anyone who uses, carries, or possesses a firearm “during and in relation to” a drug trafficking crime. The penalties are mandatory and consecutive – meaning they add onto whatever sentence you receive for the underlying drug offense.

Heres how the mandatory minimum ladder works:

• 5 years minimum for possession of a firearm
• 7 years minimum if the firearm is brandished
• 10 years minimum if the firearm is discharged
• 10 years minimum for short-barreled rifles, shotguns, or semi-automatic assault weapons
• 15 years minimum for armor-piercing ammunition
• 25 years minimum if you have a prior 924(c) conviction that became final
• 30 years minimum if the firearm is a machine gun or equipped with a silencer

These arnt maximum sentences. There minimums. The judge cannot go below them. Even if the judge thinks the sentence is wildly unjust, even if your a first-time offender with a sympathetic story, even if the gun was unloaded and locked in a safe – the minimum applies.

And heres the part that destroys lives. The sentence runs CONSECUTIVE to your drug sentence. If you get 10 years for drug trafficking and 5 years for the 924(c) charge, you serve 15 years total. Not 10 years with the gun charge running at the same time. Fifteen years. One after the other.

The “Near Your Drugs” Standard

The statute says “possession in furtherance of” a drug trafficking crime. That language is supposed to mean the gun somehow advanced or facilitated the drug activity. Prosecutors have to show a nexus between the firearm and the trafficking. Just having a gun in the same location as drugs shouldnt be enough.

Except it is. Courts have stretched “in furtherance” to absurd lengths.

Prosecutors argue that drug dealers typically arm themselves for protection. Therefore, if your a drug dealer and you own a gun, that gun “protected” your operation. It dosent matter if you never touched it during drug activity. It dosent matter if it was locked in a bedroom while drugs were in your car. The gun existed, you dealt drugs, therefore the gun furthered your trafficking.

Todd Spodek has seen cases were the “in furtherance” connection was laughably thin. A gun in a closet. A gun in a relatives house were drugs were found. A gun purchased years before any drug activity began. Prosecutors make the argument, judges accept it, and defendants serve consecutive mandatory time.

The courts use seven factors to evaluate “in furtherance”: the type of drug activity, accessibility of the firearm, type of weapon, weather the possession was illegal, weather the gun was loaded, proximity to drugs or drug profits, and the circumstances under which the gun was found. In practice, prosecutors satisfy these factors by arguing that any gun accessible to a drug dealer is inherently “in furtherance.”

If you deal drugs and own a gun – any gun, anywhere – prosecutors will try to charge you under 924(c). The standard has become that elastic.

How Prosecutors Use This Charge

Heres what most people dont understand about 924(c). Its often a leverage tool, not a rock-solid charge.

45% of 924(c) charges get added to federal cases. Then 65-70% of those charges get dismissed in plea negotiations. What does that tell you? Prosecutors add these charges knowing many wont survive trial scrutiny – but the THREAT of consecutive mandatory time forces defendants to plead guilty.

Think about the math. Your facing drug trafficking charges with a possible 10-year sentence. Prosecutors add a 924(c) count. Suddenly your looking at 15 years minimum if convicted on both. Maybe 20+ years if the gun was “brandished” during any transaction. Your choice becomes: fight both charges and risk 15-20 years, or plead guilty to the drug charge and have the gun charge dropped.

Most people take the plea. Thats exactly what prosecutors want.

The irony is brutal. The 924(c) charge isnt standalone – if your drug charge gets dismissed, the gun charge disappears to. Its called a “predicate offense” requirement. You cant be convicted of possessing a gun during drug trafficking if there was no drug trafficking. But prosecutors use the gun charge as leverage to ensure you plead guilty to the drugs.

According to U.S. Sentencing Commission data, 88% of 924(c) defendants are also convicted of another offense. 53.5% of those are drug trafficking convictions. The gun charge almost never stands alone. Its designed to make other charges stick.

The Stacking Nightmare

Before 2018, 924(c) created some of the most extreme sentences in federal criminal law.

The statute said enhanced penalties applied to “second or subsequent” convictions. Most people assumed that meant a second CASE – you get convicted once, then if you get convicted again in a separate prosecution, the enhanced penalty kicks in.

Wrong. In Deal v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that “second or subsequent” meant the second COUNT in the same indictment. Prosecutors could charge multiple 924(c) violations in a single case, and each count after the first triggered a 25-year mandatory minimum.

Think about what this meant. You sell drugs three times over two weeks. Each sale is charged as a separate trafficking count. If a gun was involved in each, thats three 924(c) counts. The first carries 5 years. The second carries 25 years. The third carries 25 years. From a single investigation, a single indictment, your facing 55 years mandatory minimum – ON TOP of whatever you get for the drug charges.

Defendants faced 75+ years from single criminal episodes. The stacking was so extreme that federal judges – judges with no discretion to reduce mandatories – publicly criticized the law. But there hands were tied.

Levon Dean Jr. committed two robberies with his brother over two weeks. He was convicted of robbery counts plus two 924(c) counts for possessing a firearm during the crimes. First count: 5 years. Second count: 25 years. Thats 30 years mandatory minimum from two robberies.

First Step Act – What Changed and What Didn’t

The First Step Act of 2018 changed the stacking rules. Now, the 25-year enhancement for “second or subsequent” offenses only applies if your prior 924(c) conviction has “become final” before the current offense. That means a prior case, not a prior count in the same case.

If Levon Dean Jr.’s case happened today, both 924(c) counts would carry 5-year minimums instead of 5 years plus 25 years. His mandatory minimum would be 10 years instead of 30.

But heres the uncomfortable truth the First Step Act didnt address. The change is NOT retroactive.

Defendants sentenced before 2018 under the old stacking interpretation remain in prison serving decades. Identical conduct committed after 2018 results in dramatically shorter sentences. Thousands of federal inmates are serving time under rules that no longer apply to new defendants – but they cant get resentenced.

The only potential relief is compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The First Step Act expanded compassionate release so defendants can file motions themselves. Some courts have granted compassionate release based on the disparity between old stacking sentences and what the same conduct would receive today. But its discretionary relief, not automatic.

If you were sentenced before 2018 with stacked 924(c) counts, you might have options. They’re limited, but they exist.

The Defense Strategies That Actually Work

Heres something counterintuitive about defending 924(c) cases. Attacking the gun evidence has a 12% success rate. Attacking the drug charge has a 31% success rate. The gun isnt the weak point. The drugs are.

Why? Because 924(c) requires a “predicate offense.” If the drug trafficking charge falls apart, the gun charge falls with it. Defense attorneys who focus on dismantling the trafficking case often get better results then those who fight the gun possession directly.

What works against the gun charge specifically?

Challenging the “in furtherance” nexus can work. Courts require more then just proximity – there must be a “specific nexus” between the firearm and the drug trafficking. The government cant rely on the generalization that drug dealers typically arm themselves. If your gun was locked away, unloaded, purchased long before any drug activity, never accessible during transactions, you have arguments.

Knowledge and intent matter. If you genuinly didnt know about the firearm – no fingerprints, gun was hidden by someone else, you were just visiting the location – thats worth litigating. Prosecutors have to prove knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.

And dont underestimate plea leverage working in your favor. If 65-70% of 924(c) charges get dismissed in negotiations, that tells you prosecutors know many of these charges are weak. An experienced federal defense attorney can often negotiate the gun charge away entirely.

Todd Spodek tells clients that the goal isnt always winning at trial. Sometimes its making the 924(c) charge disappear before trial even happens.

Dean v. United States – The Small Win

In 2017, the Supreme Court gave defendants a small victory in Dean v. United States. The Court ruled unanimously that judges CAN consider the 924(c) mandatory minimum when sentencing the predicate offense.

What does that mean practically? The judge cant reduce your 924(c) sentence below the mandatory minimum. But they CAN reduce your drug trafficking sentence to account for the mandatory gun time your already getting.

If your drug Guidelines recommend 10 years and your 924(c) mandatory minimum is 5 years, the judge might sentence you to 5 years on the drugs knowing the gun charge adds 5 more. Same 10-year total, but structured differently.

Its not much. The mandatory consecutive time still applies. But it gives judges some flexibility to prevent sentences from becoming absurdly long.

Spodek Law Group has used Dean arguments to reduce total sentences in cases were judges were sympathetic to defendants caught in the mandatory minimum trap. Its not a get-out-of-jail card. But in federal sentencing, any flexibility matters.

The Predicate Offense Connection – Your Hidden Defense

Heres something most defendants dont realize until there lawyer explains it. The 924(c) charge dosent stand alone. It REQUIRES a “predicate offense” – the underlying drug trafficking or violent crime that the gun was allegedly connected to.

What does that mean for your defense? If prosecutors cant prove the drug trafficking charge, the gun charge collapses.

This creates a strategic calculation defense attorneys make constantly. Sometimes the best way to beat a 924(c) charge isnt to fight about the gun at all. Its to focus all your resources on dismantling the drug case. If theres no drug trafficking conviction, theres no “during and in relation to” drug trafficking. The gun charge goes away.

Ive seen this happen. Defendant charged with distribution and 924(c). Defense attorney builds the case around reasonable doubt on the distribution – bad informant, questionable controlled buy, chain of custody issues with the drugs. Jury acquits on trafficking. The judge has no choice but to dismiss the 924(c) count. The gun was there, but it wasnt “in furtherance” of a crime the defendant wasnt convicted of.

The statistics confirm this strategy works. Motions challenging drug charges succeed in approximately 31% of cases. Motions challenging gun evidence directly succeed in only 12%. The math is clear – attack the predicate, not the weapon.

But heres the trap. Prosecutors know this to. They often overcharge the drug counts specifically to make plea negotiations more attractive. You might beat one trafficking count but get convicted on another. As long as ANY predicate offense sticks, the 924(c) charge survives.

What the Investigation Looks Like

Understanding how these cases develop helps you understand your exposure.

Most 924(c) cases start as drug investigations. DEA or local task forces are targeting drug trafficking. They execute a search warrant. They find drugs. They also find a gun.

At that moment, federal prosecutors have a choice. They can charge the drug trafficking alone, or they can add the 924(c) enhancement. Adding the gun charge dosent require more investigation – the gun was already found. It requires prosecutors to argue the gun was “in furtherance” of the trafficking.

What makes prosecutors add the 924(c)? Volume of drugs (suggesting serious trafficking), presence of multiple weapons, loaded gun, gun near drugs or cash, evidence of prior violence, gang connections, or simply that the defendant was a serious target they want to lock away for maximum time.

What makes prosecutors NOT add the 924(c)? Minimal drug quantities, gun stored separately from drug activity, defendant has no violent history, evidence that gun was for home protection unrelated to trafficking, or cases were the “in furtherance” argument would be genuinely weak.

The problem is you dont know which calculation prosecutors will make until indictment. And by then, your statement to investigators – if you made one – has already shaped there decision.

If agents find drugs and a gun, STOP TALKING. Every word you say about the gun becomes evidence for or against the “in furtherance” argument. Did you say the gun was for protection? Prosecutors argue you were protecting your drug operation. Did you say you keep a gun because its a dangerous neighborhood? Prosecutors argue drug dealing is dangerous. Did you say anything connecting the gun to your drug activity? You just handed them there case.

Spodek Law Group tells every client the same thing. The connection between your gun and your drug activity is something prosecutors have to PROVE. Dont do there job for them.

The Numbers That Define This Charge

The U.S. Sentencing Commission tracks 924(c) cases closely. Heres what the data shows:

In fiscal year 2024, there were 2,522 convictions under 924(c) out of 61,678 total federal cases. The average sentence was 150 months – thats 12.5 years. For defendants also convicted of drug trafficking, the average was even higher.

86% of 924(c) sentences were below the Guidelines Manual recommendation. That sounds good until you realize the Guidelines recommended even MORE time. The mandatory minimums are harsh, but the Sentencing Guidelines can be worse.

34% of 924(c) defendants were also convicted of another offense carrying its own mandatory minimum. Stack a drug mandatory minimum on a gun mandatory minimum, and sentences quickly reach decades.

The system is designed to produce long sentences. Consecutive mandatories. Stacking enhancements. No judicial discretion. 924(c) isnt just a charge – its a mechanism for ensuring federal drug defendants serve serious time.

If You’re Facing 924(c) Charges

Maybe your reading this because prosecutors have added a 924(c) count to your case. Heres what you need to understand.

This charge is serious. The mandatory minimums are real. The consecutive sentencing is real. But 65-70% of these charges get dismissed in plea negotiations, which means there negotiable.

Dont assume the gun charge is solid just because prosecutors filed it. Challenge the predicate offense. Challenge the “in furtherance” nexus. Make prosecutors prove every element.

And dont talk to investigators. If agents are asking about guns and drugs, anything you say becomes evidence. The connection between your firearm and your alleged drug activity – thats something prosecutors have to prove. Dont hand them the proof.

Call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196 before you answer any questions. We handle federal firearms and drug trafficking cases and understand how 924(c) prosecutions develop. The consultation is confidential.

These charges carry the kind of time that changes everything. Five years minimum. Served after your drug sentence. If prosecutors can stack counts, much more. You need a defense strategy before you say a word.

Call us at 212-300-5196. If federal agents are connecting your guns to your drugs, the clock is already running on your exposure.