Criminal Defense Lawyers

18 U.S.C. § 924(c): The Firearms Enhancement That Adds Decades to Your Drug Sentence

Last Updated on: 10th December 2025, 09:25 pm

The firearms enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) doesn’t enhance your sentence – it adds a second sentence entirely. The 5-year mandatory minimum for possessing a firearm during drug trafficking runs consecutive to your drug sentence, not concurrent. A 10-year drug sentence plus a 924(c) conviction equals 15 years minimum. Not 10 years with the gun factored in. Fifteen years total – the sentences stacked on top of each other. This is the only federal enhancement that works this way, and it transforms drug trafficking cases into decades of imprisonment.

Here’s the trap that destroyed lives for decades before Congress partially fixed it: prosecutors could “stack” multiple 924(c) counts in the same case. The first count was 5 years mandatory. The second count – even in the same indictment, even from the same criminal episode – was 25 years mandatory. The third count was another 25 years. Weldon Angelos, a 24-year-old music executive, sold $350 worth of marijuana on three occasions with a visible gun. His sentence: 55 years. The judge called it “unjust, cruel, and even irrational.” Then he imposed it anyway because mandatory minimums gave him no choice.

Understanding 924(c) means understanding that this statute functions differently from any other federal enhancement. Other enhancements increase your guidelines range. 924(c) adds a completely separate sentence that must run consecutively to whatever you receive for the underlying offense. The First Step Act fixed the stacking problem in 2018 – but didn’t make it retroactive. Thousands remain in federal prison serving sentences Congress admitted were wrong. And the “in furtherance” standard has been stretched so far that a gun in your bedroom while drugs are in your car can qualify. The gun doesn’t need to be used. It doesn’t need to be touched. It needs to be there.

The Mandatory Minimums That Stack

Heres how the 924(c) mandatory minimums actualy work in federal court.

For simply possessing or carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, the mandatory minimum is 5 years – served consecutive to the drug sentence. This is the baseline. If you had a gun and you were trafficking drugs, your looking at 5 years added on top of whatever the drug charge produces.

For brandishing a firearm during drug trafficking, the mandatory minimum jumps to 7 years consecutive. “Brandishing” dosent require pointing the gun at someone. Making the firearm visible – displaying it in a way that could intimidate – is enough to trigger the enhanced minimum.

For discharging a firearm during drug trafficking, the mandatory minimum is 10 years consecutive. Fire the gun once, even if nobody is hurt, and your facing a decade added to your drug sentence.

And heres were it gets worse. If the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the minimum is 10 years. If its a machine gun, destructive device, or silencer, the minimum is 30 years. Thirty years mandatory, consecutive to the underlying offense, for a first offense involving certain weapon types.

The Stacking Nightmare

Heres the provision that produced some of the most unjust sentences in federal history.

Before the First Step Act of 2018, the statute said a “second or subsequent” 924(c) conviction carried a 25-year mandatory minimum. Courts interpreted this to mean that multiple 924(c) counts in the same indictment – the same case, arising from the same criminal episode – could be stacked. The first count was 5 years. The second count, charged in the same indictment, was treated as “subsequent” and carried 25 years. A third count added another 25 years.

This is how Weldon Angelos got 55 years. He sold marijuana to an informant three times. A gun was visible during two sales. Police found additional guns at his home. Three 924(c) counts: 5 + 25 + 25 = 55 years mandatory, consecutive to his drug sentence. For $350 total in marijuana sales.

The sentencing judge, Paul Cassell, wrote an extraordinary opinion calling the sentence “unjust, cruel, and even irrational.” He noted that the sentence exceeded what kidnappers, airplane hijackers, and second-degree murderers typically recieve. He called on the President to commute the sentence and on Congress to fix the law. Then he imposed the 55-year sentence anyway becuase mandatory minimums gave him no discretion.

Angelos was eventualy released in 2016 after serving 13 years, following a bipartisan campaign that included celebrities, politicians, and remarkably, the same prosecutor who originally charged him. But thousands of others sentenced under the stacking regime remain in federal prison.

The First Step Act Fix – And Its Limits

OK, so Congress finally addressed the stacking problem in 2018.

The First Step Act modified 924(c) so that the 25-year “second or subsequent” penalty only applies if the defendant has a prior 924(c) conviction that has already become final. No more stacking multiple counts in the same indictment. No more treating a second count in the same case as “subsequent” to the first.

This is genuine reform. Under current law, even if prosecutors charge three 924(c) counts in the same case, each one carries only the base 5, 7, or 10-year minimum (depending on conduct). They still run consecutive to each other and to the drug sentence, but you cant get the 25-year enhancement without a prior final conviction.

But heres what Congress didnt do: make the fix retroactive. Defendants sentenced under the old stacking regime before December 21, 2018 generally cannot benefit from the change. They are serving sentences that Congress acknowledged were unjust – sentences Congress fixed for future defendants – but they’re not eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act.

Some courts have granted relief through compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), recognizing that the disparity between old and new sentences constitutes an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for sentence reduction. But this is discretionary and inconsistent across districts. Many stacking defendants remain imprisoned for decades.

Weapon Type Enhancements: 30 Years for the Wrong Gun

Heres the enhancement within the enhancement that catches defendants completely off guard.

The base 924(c) minimums assume a standard firearm. But the statute contains additional enhancements based on weapon type that dramaticaly increase exposure.

If the firearm is a short-barreled rifle (barrel under 16 inches), short-barreled shotgun (barrel under 18 inches), or semiautomatic assault weapon, the mandatory minimum is 10 years – not 5. Same consecutive structure, double the time.

If the firearm is a machine gun, destructive device, or silencer, the mandatory minimum is 30 years – not 5. Thirty years mandatory, consecutive to your drug sentence, for a first offense. This applies even if the weapon was never used, never fired, never pointed at anyone. Possession during drug trafficking is sufficient.

And heres the really devastating part: if you have a prior final 924(c) conviction and the current offense involves a machine gun, destructive device, or silencer, the mandatory minimum is life imprisonment. Not life maximum. Life mandatory. No judicial discretion.

The weapon type enhancement means that 924(c) exposure varies enormously based on what kind of firearm is involved. A standard handgun triggers 5-7-10 years. A silencer triggers 30 years to life. Defendants need to understand not just wheather a firearm is involved but what kind.

The “In Furtherance” Standard

Heres were the statute has expanded far beyond what most people imagine.

After the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of “use” in Bailey v. United States (1995), Congress amended 924(c) to add “possesses in furtherance of” the drug trafficking offense. This was supposed to cover situations were defendants had guns nearby but werent actively using them. It has become something far broader.

Courts have found “in furtherance” based on minimal evidence of connection between the firearm and the drug activity. A gun in your bedroom while drugs are in your car? Courts have found this sufficient – the gun “protected” your drug stash. A gun inherited from your grandfather sitting in a closet? Courts have reasoned that drug dealers “typically” arm themselves, so any gun in a trafficker’s possession furthers the trafficking.

The standard requires a “specific nexus” between the firearm and the drug crime – not just simultaneous possession. But prosecutors argue this nexus exists whenever a drug trafficker has access to a firearm, and courts frequently agree. The practical effect is that any gun anywhere in a drug defendant’s control creates 924(c) exposure.

This matters becuase “in furtherance” is a genuine defense opportunity. If you can demonstrate that the gun had no connection to the drug activity – it was in a seperate location, belonged to someone else, or was possessed for reasons entirely unrelated to trafficking – you can challenge the 924(c) charge. Defendants who go to trial on 924(c) win about 30% of the time. Thats far higher then most federal trial rates. The “in furtherance” element is actually contestable.

The Predicate Offense Requirement

924(c) requires an underlying “drug trafficking crime” – if that falls, so does the firearms charge.

You cannot be convicted of 924(c) standing alone. The statute applies only to firearm possession “during and in relation to” or “in furtherance of” a drug trafficking crime (or crime of violence). This means the government must also convict you of the underlying offense. If you’re acquitted of the drug charge, the 924(c) charge fails automatically.

This creates defense strategy implications. Sometimes the strongest defense is attacking the predicate offense rather then the firearms charge itself. If the drug trafficking case is weak, defeating it defeats 924(c) as well. The firearms enhancement is entirely dependent on the underlying conviction.

Plea negotiations also involve this dynamic. Prosecutors sometimes offer to dismiss 924(c) in exchange for a guilty plea on the drug charge. They get there conviction without the risk of trial. You avoid the consecutive mandatory minimum. The enhancement becomes leverage rather then punishment – a bargaining chip traded away for a plea.

The Plea Leverage Game

924(c) functions as prosecutorial leverage as much as it functions as punishment.

Prosecutors know that defendants facing 924(c) on top of drug charges are looking at dramatically longer sentences if convicted. A defendant facing 10 years on drug charges faces 15 years with 924(c) added. A defendant looking at 20 years faces 25 or more. The consecutive nature of 924(c) creates enormous pressure to plead guilty.

This is how plea negotiations often work: the government charges 924(c) along with the drug offense, threatens the stacked consecutive sentence, then offers to dismiss 924(c) if the defendant pleads guilty to the drug charge. The enhancement never gets imposed – it served its purpose by inducing the plea.

Some defendants take there cases to trial anyway. The 30% acquittal rate on 924(c) suggests that challenging “in furtherance” is viable. But the risk is enormous. If convicted, your facing years or decades of additional imprisonment that could have been avoided with a plea. The consecutive mandatory nature of 924(c) makes this calculus particularly brutal.

The Statistics Reality

Federal 924(c) prosecutions remain substantial.

In fiscal year 2024, 2,522 cases involved convictions under 924(c). Of those, 53.5% were also convicted of drug trafficking – the enhancement’s primary application. The average sentence for all 924(c) defendants was 150 months – 12.5 years.

That average breaks down revealing patterns. Defendants convicted only of 924(c) (without other convictions carrying mandatory minimums) averaged 83 months. Those also convicted of offenses carrying mandatory minimums averaged 195 months – over 16 years. The 924(c) enhancement, combined with drug mandatory minimums, produces sentences measured in decades.

34% of 924(c) defendants were also convicted of another offense carrying a mandatory minimum, usually drug trafficking. The overlap between firearms and drug prosecutions is substantial. If your facing federal drug charges and theres a gun anywhere in the picture, 924(c) exposure exists.

The Second or Subsequent Trap

Here’s something most defendants don’t understand about the 25-year enhancement.

The 25-year mandatory for a “second or subsequent” 924(c) conviction requires that the prior conviction be FINAL before the current offense was committed. This is were the First Step Act made its change – no more stacking counts in the same indictment. But if you have an actual prior 924(c) conviction that became final before your current offense, the 25-year mandatory still applies.

What does “final” mean? The conviction and sentence have been imposed, and any direct appeal has been resolved. If your still appealing your first 924(c) when you commit the second offense, the first one isnt “final” yet – and the 25-year enhancement shouldnt apply.

This creates strategic considerations. The timing of when convictions become final matters enormously. A defendant whose first 924(c) is still on appeal when they commit a second offense faces different exposure then someone whose first conviction became final years ago.

Defense counsel must verify the exact timeline. When was the first 924(c) conviction entered? When did it become final? When was the current offense committed? The answers determine wheather your facing 5 years or 25 years on the current charge.

The No Parole Reality

Heres what makes 924(c) consecutive time especialy impactful. Theres no parole in the federal system. Whatever sentence the 924(c) adds, your serving at least 85% of it.

Good conduct credit can reduce your sentence by about 15%. Thats the maximum. The 5-year mandatory minimum means aproximately 4.25 years of actual incarceration added to your drug sentence. The 7-year brandishing minimum means about 6 years added. The 10-year discharge minimum means about 8.5 years added.

Compare this to concurrent sentencing. If your 924(c) sentence ran concurrent with your drug sentence, the 5-year firearms minimum might be absorbed into a longer drug sentence. Consecutive means its added. A 10-year drug sentence plus 5-year consecutive 924(c) means 15 years total – approximately 12.75 years actualy served. The consecutive nature is the difference between years and decades.

Common Mistakes in 924(c) Cases

Defendants make predictable mistakes when facing 924(c) charges.

Mistake 1: Assuming “in furtherance” requires active use. It dosent. Possession near drug activity with a prosecutorial argument about nexus is often sufficient. The standard is broader then most defendants expect.

Mistake 2: Not understanding the consecutive nature. 924(c) time is added to your drug sentence, not absorbed into it. Calculate your total exposure as drug sentence PLUS firearms sentence.

Mistake 3: Ignoring the predicate offense connection. If the underlying drug charge fails, 924(c) fails. Sometimes the best defense strategy is attacking the drug case rather then the firearms charge.

Mistake 4: Not considering trial viability. The 30% acquittal rate on 924(c) suggests the “in furtherance” element is genuinely contestable. Evaluate wheather trial makes sense before accepting plea pressure.

Mistake 5: Missing First Step Act implications. If your facing multiple 924(c) counts, stacking no longer applies post-2018. Each count carries its base minimum, not the 25-year “subsequent” enhancement.

What To Do If Your Facing 924(c) Charges

If your facing 924(c) charges, heres the realistic framework.

First, calculate your total exposure including the consecutive nature. Drug sentence PLUS firearms sentence PLUS any stacking (if pre-First Step Act or if you have prior final 924(c) convictions). Understand the full picture.

Second, evaluate the “in furtherance” element. What is the actual connection between the firearm and the drug activity? Was the gun in a seperate location? Did it belong to someone else? Is there evidence the gun had no nexus to trafficking?

Third, assess the strength of the predicate offense. If the drug case is weak, defeating it defeats 924(c). Sometimes the firearms charge is dependent on a vulnerable underlying case.

Fourth, understand the plea dynamics. Is the prosecutor offering to dismiss 924(c) for a plea? What is the difference in exposure between plea and trial conviction? The consecutive mandatory nature makes this calculation critical.

Fifth, consider trial viability given the 30% acquittal rate. If “in furtherance” is genuinely contestable in your case, trial might be viable despite the risks.

The Questions You Should Be Asking

“Did I use the gun” is the wrong question for 924(c) exposure. You now know “possession in furtherance” dosent require use.

The right questions are:

• What is the total consecutive exposure (drug sentence + 924(c))?
• What evidence connects the firearm to the drug activity beyond mere proximity?
• How strong is the underlying drug case that serves as the predicate?
• Is the prosecutor offering to dismiss 924(c) as part of plea negotiations?
• Given the 30% acquittal rate, is challenging “in furtherance” viable?

These questions lead to realistic 924(c) exposure assessment. The “I never fired the gun” perspective leads to underestimating exposure.

5 years for possession. 7 years for brandishing. 10 years for discharge. 30 years for machine guns. All consecutive to the drug sentence. Pre-First Step Act stacking produced 55-year sentences for marijuana sales. Congress fixed it but didnt make it retroactive. Thousands remain imprisoned under sentences acknowledged as unjust. “In furtherance” has stretched to cover guns in bedrooms while drugs are in cars. The average sentence is 150 months. No parole means serving 85%+ of whatever consecutive time is added. Thats the reality of 924(c) – the enhancement that dosent enhance your sentence but adds a second sentence entirely.