Category: Federal Criminal Defense
Published: October 2, 2026
For: Texas defendants and families facing federal firearm charges
Facing a federal firearm charge can be incredibly challenging, particularly when the charge is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). A single § 924(c) count may add a mandatory consecutive sentence to the punishment for an underlying drug-trafficking offense or crime of violence, sometimes turning a manageable sentencing range into decades in federal prison.
You are not alone, and guidance is available. At Tidwell Law Firm, PLLC, we understand how overwhelming federal prosecution can feel; we provide careful review of the indictment, evidence, sentencing calculations, and available defense strategies. The details matter.
Table of Contents
- What § 924(c) prohibits
- Mandatory minimums and consecutive sentences
- How the First Step Act changed “stacking”
- “In furtherance of” and “crime of violence” disputes
- Potential defense strategies
- Frequently asked questions
What Does 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) Do?
Section 924(c) creates a separate federal offense, not merely a routine sentencing enhancement. It applies when the government proves that a defendant used or carried a firearm during and in relation to a qualifying offense, or possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime or crime of violence.
The firearm charge is separate from the underlying offense. That distinction is crucial.
For example, if prosecutors charge Mark with drug trafficking and a related § 924(c) offense, the government must prove both the drug crime and the required firearm connection. A conviction on the firearm count can then add a mandatory prison term on top of the sentence for the drug offense.
A § 924(c) conviction can therefore dominate the entire case.
Mandatory Minimums Under § 924(c)
Understanding the Five-, Seven-, and Ten-Year Floors
The ordinary mandatory minimum for a first § 924(c) conviction is generally:
- Five years if the firearm was used, carried, or possessed in furtherance of the qualifying offense.
- Seven years if the firearm was brandished.
- Ten years if the firearm was discharged.
These are statutory minimums. In most cases, the sentencing judge cannot simply apply ordinary guideline discretion to sentence below the applicable floor.
Certain weapon characteristics may trigger different minimums. Under the current statutory text, a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun generally carries a 10-year minimum, while a machinegun, destructive device, or firearm equipped with a silencer or muffler generally carries a 30-year minimum.
It is important to correct a common misunderstanding: the 25-year minimum is generally associated with a second or subsequent § 924(c) violation committed after a prior § 924(c) conviction became final, not with every machinegun or short-barreled-rifle allegation. Section 924(o), which addresses conspiracies involving § 924(c), can also carry severe penalties, but the exact exposure depends on the charged conduct and statutory provisions in the indictment.
The Sentence Must Run Consecutively
Section 924(c) requires the firearm sentence to run consecutively to the sentence for the underlying drug-trafficking crime or crime of violence. In plain English, the sentences are added together rather than served at the same time.
Suppose Jane receives:
- Eight years for the underlying drug offense; and
- Five years under § 924(c).
Her statutory prison exposure is at least 13 years, not eight years. If the firearm was brandished or discharged, the additional mandatory term could be even greater.
The statute also prohibits probation for a § 924(c) conviction. Federal good-conduct credits are a separate Bureau of Prisons issue and may be available for eligible fixed-term sentences under federal law; however, those credits do not eliminate the mandatory consecutive structure, permit a concurrent sentence, or give the sentencing judge authority to disregard the statutory minimum.
That is why early legal analysis is essential.
What the First Step Act Changed About “Stacking”
Before the First Step Act of 2018, prosecutors could charge multiple § 924(c) counts in one indictment and trigger a 25-year mandatory minimum on later counts, even when the defendant had never before been convicted of a § 924(c) offense.
This practice was commonly called stacking. A first-time defendant could face five, seven, or ten years on one count, followed by 25 years on another count, with every term running consecutively.
The First Step Act changed the trigger for the 25-year penalty. Under the amended law, the enhanced minimum generally applies when the new § 924(c) violation occurs after a prior § 924(c) conviction has become final.
Accordingly, multiple § 924(c) counts arising from the same indictment do not automatically produce a 25-year sentence on the second count for a defendant with no prior final § 924(c) conviction. Each count may still carry its own mandatory minimum, and those terms may still run consecutively, but the old automatic 25-year stacking rule no longer applies in the same way.
The reform was not fully retroactive. It generally applies to qualifying cases in which a sentence had not been imposed when the First Step Act became law. A person serving an older sentence must have counsel examine the judgment, procedural history, and available post-conviction remedies rather than assuming the amendment automatically applies.
Challenging the Required Connection
What “In Furtherance Of” Means
The word “in furtherance” can be one of the most important issues in a § 924(c) drug case. Mere possession of a firearm near drugs is not automatically enough. The government must generally show a meaningful connection between the firearm and the drug-trafficking activity.
Courts may examine factors such as:
- The firearm’s proximity to drugs, money, or packaging materials;
- Whether the firearm was loaded;
- Whether it was readily accessible;
- The timing and location of the firearm in relation to the alleged trafficking;
- The quantity and organization of the drugs;
- Statements, conduct, or other evidence suggesting the firearm protected, advanced, or facilitated the operation.
Personal ownership alone may not establish the required connection. A firearm kept for personal protection, stored separately from drugs, or inaccessible during the alleged offense may present a different legal and factual question than a loaded weapon placed beside trafficking proceeds.
These cases are highly fact-specific, and Fifth Circuit precedent should be reviewed closely in federal prosecutions brought in Texas.
The “Crime of Violence” Problem
A § 924(c) charge may also rely on an alleged crime of violence. The statute contains an elements clause and a residual clause. The residual clause was held unconstitutionally vague in United States v. Davis, following the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Sessions v. Dimaya.
After Davis, the government generally cannot rely on the invalid residual clause. Instead, the predicate offense must qualify under the elements clause, which asks whether the offense has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person or property.
Courts ordinarily analyze that question categorically, by examining the legal elements of the predicate offense rather than simply focusing on the particular facts alleged. A conspiracy or attempt charge may therefore raise different questions from a completed offense, and the exact statutory language matters.
Potential Defense Strategies
Every case is different, but a careful defense may include several avenues.
-
Challenge the “in furtherance” element.
Examine whether the evidence shows more than possession, proximity, or ownership. The government must connect the firearm to the alleged trafficking or qualifying offense. -
Contest accessibility and timing.
Consider whether the firearm was unloaded, locked away, inaccessible, or unrelated to the specific conduct charged. A weapon’s location and availability may be central to the analysis. -
Challenge the predicate offense.
Determine whether the alleged drug-trafficking crime or crime of violence legally qualifies under § 924(c). After Davis and Dimaya, a vague risk-based argument cannot substitute for a valid statutory predicate. -
Negotiate away the § 924(c) count.
In some cases, counsel may pursue a resolution that avoids the firearm count, narrows the factual basis, or limits the number of counts carrying consecutive mandatory minimums. Negotiation depends on the evidence, criminal history, charging decisions, and the government’s assessment of its case. -
Build a conservative sentencing calculation.
Do not assume the government’s guideline calculations are correct. Counsel should independently review drug quantities, relevant conduct, role adjustments, criminal history, weapon allegations, obstruction claims, and any statutory mandatory minimums. -
Present meaningful mitigation.
Family responsibilities, employment, treatment history, mental-health evidence, trauma, education, community support, and other personal circumstances may matter at sentencing, even when a mandatory minimum limits the judge’s discretion.
At Tidwell Law Firm, we also approach federal cases as a process rather than a single event. A target letter, detention hearing, indictment, plea negotiation, sentencing hearing, direct appeal, or post-conviction motion may require a different strategy. Our attorneys’ federal criminal defense resources address issues including target letters, pretrial detention, federal sentencing, and appeals and § 2255 motions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a § 924(c) conviction automatically mean five additional years?
Not always. Five years is the ordinary minimum for a qualifying first conviction, but brandishing, discharging, certain firearm types, and prior final § 924(c) convictions can produce higher minimums.
Can the judge run a § 924(c) sentence at the same time as the underlying sentence?
Generally, no. Section 924(c) requires the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence for the underlying offense.
Is merely possessing a firearm enough?
Generally, possession must be connected to the qualifying offense. In a drug case, the government typically must prove possession in furtherance of drug trafficking, not merely possession at the same location.
Does the First Step Act eliminate all 25-year § 924(c) sentences?
No. The Act changed when the 25-year repeat-offender minimum applies. It generally requires a prior § 924(c) conviction that became final before the new violation occurred.
Can a § 924(c) conviction based on a crime of violence be challenged after Davis?
Possibly, depending on the predicate offense, procedural posture, preservation of the issue, and applicable deadlines. Davis invalidated the residual clause, but not every § 924(c) charge.
What should my family do after a federal firearm indictment?
Avoid discussing the facts with investigators or posting about the case, preserve relevant records, and arrange a prompt consultation with experienced federal defense counsel. Federal deadlines can be strict, and early decisions may affect detention, discovery, negotiations, and sentencing.
Moving Forward
A § 924(c) charge can add years, or decades, to a federal case. The indictment, predicate offense, firearm evidence, charging history, and sentencing calculations must be examined carefully; assumptions can be costly.
There are no guaranteed outcomes. However, a thorough defense may identify weaknesses in the “in furtherance” allegation, challenge an invalid predicate, address improper stacking, or present mitigation that supports a more favorable resolution.
If you or a family member is facing a federal firearm charge in Texas, contact Tidwell Law Firm, PLLC to discuss the situation with counsel. The process may be daunting, but informed legal guidance can help you understand the next steps and move forward with purpose.
This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. The law and its application can change, and whether a defense or sentencing option applies depends on the specific facts, indictment, jurisdiction, and procedural history of the case.