Federal Weapons & Firearms Defense

18 U.S.C. § 924(c) prohibits using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in furtherance of a federal drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence. The sentence is mandatory and consecutive, meaning it runs after the underlying offense is fully served, not at the same time. A first § 924(c) conviction adds a mandatory 5 years (7 years if the weapon was brandished, 10 years if discharged). A second § 924(c) count adds 25 mandatory years. These minimums cannot be reduced by cooperation, safety valve, or judicial variance. When prosecutors add § 924(c) to a drug trafficking case, they are adding years, sometimes decades, beyond what the drug charges alone would produce.

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), applies when a defendant convicted of felon in possession (§ 922(g)) has three or more prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. An ACCA conviction carries a mandatory minimum of 15 years. The definition of qualifying prior convictions has been heavily litigated, the Supreme Court has repeatedly narrowed which offenses count as 'violent felonies.' We conduct full ACCA exposure analysis in every § 922(g) case, because a contested prior conviction can mean the difference between a 10-year maximum and a 15-year floor.

Federal firearms trafficking involves purchasing firearms with intent to illegally resell, distribute, or export them; making false statements on federal acquisition forms (ATF Form 4473); dealing in firearms without a license; or exporting weapons internationally without authorization. In the Southern District of Florida, trafficking cases frequently involve weapons purchased in Florida and destined for the Caribbean, Central America, or South America. A single trafficking case involving multiple weapons can generate multiple consecutive sentences, particularly when 924(c) charges are added for firearms used in drug offenses or violent crimes.

Yes, and eliminating a § 924(c) count is one of the highest-value objectives in any federal drug or violent crime case. We challenge the nexus between the firearm and the underlying offense, argue that possession was incidental rather than 'in furtherance of' the crime, and litigate the search and seizure through which the weapon was discovered. In one case, we successfully argued for all gun charges to be dropped through extensive pre-trial motion practice, avoiding what would have been a mandatory consecutive sentence on top of a cocaine conviction. When dismissal is not achievable, we negotiate § 924(c) dismissal as part of plea agreement terms.

The Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Rehaif v. United States held that the government must prove you knew you were a felon (or otherwise belonged to a prohibited class) at the time you possessed the firearm. While most defendants do know of their prior convictions, Rehaif created meaningful defense arguments in cases involving defendants with old convictions, expunged records, foreign convictions with different legal consequences, or defendants who were misled about their legal status. We evaluate Rehaif arguments in every § 922(g) case.

Possibly. The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen rewrote the framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges, requiring the government to identify a historical analogue from the founding era that supports the modern restriction. The Court's 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi clarified that § 922(g)(8) (domestic violence restraining order possession ban) survives Bruen, but the decision left open the constitutionality of other § 922(g) subsections in non-violent felon cases. Several circuit courts have already applied Bruen to invalidate § 922(g)(1) as applied to defendants with non-violent prior felonies. The argument is most viable when the prior felony is old, non-violent, and disconnected from any history of weapon misuse. We brief Bruen challenges in every applicable § 922(g) case.

Both involve firearms but charge different conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prohibits certain categories of people (felons, fugitives, those subject to restraining orders, unlawful drug users, non-citizens, and others) from possessing firearms at all. The conduct charged is the possession itself, regardless of how the firearm is used. § 922(g) carries up to 10 years per count, increased to a mandatory 15 years under the ACCA if the defendant has three or more qualifying prior felonies. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is different: it requires possession of a firearm in furtherance of a federal drug trafficking crime or crime of violence. § 924(c) does not stand alone, it must attach to an underlying offense, but it carries a mandatory consecutive sentence (5/7/10/25 years depending on the conduct) that runs after the underlying sentence. § 922(g) is about who you are; § 924(c) is about what the gun was used for.

A straw purchase occurs when a person legally able to purchase a firearm buys it on behalf of someone who cannot legally purchase one themselves, often a felon, undocumented person, or a person subject to a restraining order. The legal purchaser fills out ATF Form 4473 (Firearms Transaction Record) certifying that they are the actual buyer, which is a false statement when the gun is actually destined for the third party. Federal charges include 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) (false statement on Form 4473, up to 10 years), 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) (false statement in firearm records), and under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, 18 U.S.C. § 932 (straw purchasing as a stand-alone felony with up to 15 years). Straw purchase prosecutions in SDFL are increasing, particularly in cases involving guns later traced to violent crime, the Caribbean, or Latin America.

Several recur. **Suppression motions** challenge the search and seizure that produced the firearm; a successful Fourth Amendment ruling eliminates the case. **Constructive possession challenges** apply when the firearm was found in a residence, vehicle, or storage area accessible to multiple people, the government must prove knowing dominion and control. **Rehaif knowledge challenges** require the government to prove the defendant knew of their prohibited status (felon, undocumented, etc.) at the time of possession. **Bruen Second Amendment challenges** apply to non-violent prior felons. **ACCA predicate challenges** can defeat the 15-year mandatory minimum in § 922(g) cases where the government's three prior 'violent felony' or 'serious drug offense' predicates do not actually qualify under current Supreme Court precedent (Johnson, Borden, Wooden). Multiple defenses are typically deployed in parallel.

No. ATF agents typically appear after the bureau has already traced the firearm to you, obtained your ATF Form 4473, conducted controlled purchases, or developed a confidential informant. Any statement you make about how you came into possession of the firearm, who else accessed it, what your understanding of your legal status was, or where the weapon has been is admissible at trial and is frequently the strongest evidence of the knowledge element required for conviction. False statements to ATF agents are themselves a separate federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Decline the interview politely, take the agents' contact information, and call experienced federal firearms defense counsel before any conversation. The decision to proffer, if any, comes later, with counsel present, after we have reviewed the evidence the government has assembled.

The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841–5872, regulates a specific class of firearms: short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns, machine guns, silencers and suppressors, destructive devices, and any-other-weapons (AOWs). Each must be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) before transfer or possession, and transferees must pay a $200 tax stamp and complete ATF Form 4. Possession of an unregistered NFA item violates 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and carries up to 10 years per count plus forfeiture. Recent ATF rulemaking on pistol braces and forced-reset triggers has put thousands of formerly legal owners into technical NFA-violation territory, though enforcement has been uneven and remains subject to active litigation in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. We litigate constructive intent, the validity of the underlying ATF classification, and Bruen-based Second Amendment challenges in NFA prosecutions.

Yes. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prohibits prohibited persons from possessing not only firearms but also ammunition, defined broadly to include cartridges, cartridge cases, primers, bullets, and propellant powder. A single round of ammunition in a glove box, a single shell in a kitchen drawer, or spent casings retained at a residence can support a § 922(g) prosecution carrying up to 10 years, and triggering ACCA's 15-year mandatory minimum if the prior felony predicates qualify. Federal agents routinely charge ammunition-only § 922(g) cases when no firearm is recovered but ammunition is found during a search. The constructive possession battle is identical to firearm cases: the government must prove knowing dominion and control. We contest possession in shared spaces, challenge the prohibited-status knowledge element under Rehaif v. United States (2019), and litigate the constitutional reach of § 922(g) under post-Bruen Second Amendment doctrine.

A 'Glock switch' or 'auto sear' is a small device that converts a semi-automatic pistol or rifle into a fully automatic firearm capable of continuous fire with a single trigger pull. Under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), any such device is itself classified as a 'machinegun' regardless of whether it is installed, and falls under the National Firearms Act. Possession of an unregistered machinegun, or of any machinegun manufactured after May 19, 1986 (which includes virtually all switches and sears), violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and carries up to 10 years per count. SDFL prosecutions involving 3D-printed switches and imported Chinese-manufactured auto sears have increased substantially since 2023. The charge typically pairs with felon-in-possession counts and, when drugs are involved, § 924(c) enhancements that add 5 to 30 mandatory consecutive years. We challenge the operability of the device, the chain-of-custody for forensic testing, and Second Amendment arguments where applicable.

The answer depends on assembly status and timing. Unfinished receivers (commonly '80% lowers') were historically unregulated firearm components, sold without serial numbers and assembled by hobbyists into functional firearms. ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F, effective August 2022, redefined 'frame or receiver' and 'firearm' to include certain partially complete receivers when sold in kits with the components and tools needed to complete them. The rule survived initial litigation, the Supreme Court upheld it in Garland v. VanDerStok (2025). Possession of an unserialized firearm or unfinished receiver covered by the rule violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), and manufacturing without a license violates § 922(a)(1)(A). Prohibited persons who possess assembled ghost guns face § 922(g) charges identical to those for serialized firearms. We litigate the temporal scope of the rule, the regulatory definition of 'readily' convertible, and Bruen-based constitutional challenges.

Federal courts recognize both actual and constructive possession. Actual possession requires the firearm on your person. Constructive possession requires proof that the defendant knowingly had the power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the weapon, directly or through others. Constructive possession charges arise when a firearm is found in a shared vehicle, a residence, a hotel room, or storage unit accessible to the defendant. The government builds the case through proximity, ownership of the surrounding space, fingerprints or DNA, statements, and contextual evidence (drugs nearby, personal items in the same area, security footage). The Eleventh Circuit requires more than mere presence or access, there must be evidence specifically linking the defendant to the weapon. We challenge constructive possession through alternative-occupant defenses, suppression of incriminating statements, and forensic re-examination of any biological evidence attributed to the firearm.