Gun Charges Defense

Local police often refer cases to federal prosecutors when they want to secure harsher penalties. This is common in initiatives like Project Safe Neighborhoods. We monitor these referrals closely.

If a case goes federal the rules of engagement change dramatically. Federal sentencing guidelines are far more severe and the judges have less discretion. We intervene early to persuade federal prosecutors to decline the case or to keep it in state court. We argue that the offense lacks a sufficient federal nexus or that the client does not fit the profile of the violent offender the federal statutes were designed to target. Keeping the case in state court is often the first major victory in a comprehensive defense strategy.

Federal gun laws are notorious for their mandatory minimum sentences. Statutes like 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) impose automatic prison terms for using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. These sentences must run consecutively to any other sentence.

Our strategy focuses on decoupling the weapon from the underlying offense. We argue that the presence of the firearm was incidental or for personal protection unrelated to the alleged drug activity. By proving that the gun was not possessed in furtherance of the crime we can defeat the mandatory minimum count. This can reduce the potential sentence by five ten or even twenty-five years depending on the specific charge.

Constructive possession requires knowledge. If you did not know the gun was under the seat or in the gym bag you are not guilty. We focus on the lack of forensic evidence connecting the client to the weapon.

We demand DNA and fingerprint analysis. If the forensic results are negative or inconclusive it supports our argument that the client never touched the firearm. We also investigate the history of the vehicle or the property. If the car was borrowed or if other people had access to the room we argue that the gun could belong to anyone. By raising reasonable doubt about who placed the weapon there we undermine the core element of possession.

Even if the client knew the gun was there they must have the intent and ability to control it. Being a passenger in a car where a gun is in the trunk does not automatically establish dominion.

We argue that mere proximity is not possession. We present evidence that the client had no access to the keys or that the weapon was locked in a container controlled by someone else. In shared housing situations we map out the residence to show that the gun was found in a common area or a space exclusively used by another resident. This spatial analysis is critical to defeating the broad reach of constructive possession allegations.

Many gun cases begin with a simple traffic stop. We scrutinize the validity of the initial stop. Did the officer really see a traffic violation or was it a pretext to search the car?

We challenge the scope of the detention. Once the traffic ticket is written the officer must let the driver go unless they have reasonable suspicion of another crime. We often find that officers unlawfully extend the stop to ask questions about weapons or to conduct a dog sniff. We file motions to suppress any evidence found during this illegal extension. If the judge grants the motion the charges are typically dismissed.

Police often conduct warrantless searches relying on exceptions like consent or plain view. We vigorously challenge these exceptions.

If the officer claims they saw the gun in plain view we reconstruct the scene to prove that was physically impossible given the lighting and the position of the item. If the officer relies on consent we use the body camera audio to prove the consent was coerced or never unequivocally given. We argue that submission to authority is not the same as voluntary consent. By attacking the legal basis of the search we protect the constitutional rights of the client and destroy the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution.

This knowledge requirement opens a significant avenue for defense. Many individuals are unaware that their prior conviction qualifies them as a prohibited person especially if they never served prison time or if the conviction was decades old.

We gather evidence of the client’s confusion regarding their legal status. If a client voted in elections obtained a hunting license or passed a background check for a job it demonstrates a good faith belief that their rights were intact. We argue that a misunderstanding of complex legal restoration procedures is a defense to the specific intent required by the statute. This defense is particularly effective for clients with out-of-state convictions where the laws differ.

We also scrutinize the prior conviction itself. Not all felonies qualify as predicate offenses for federal gun charges. We analyze the statutory elements of the old crime.

If the prior conviction has been expunged set aside or pardoned it may no longer serve as a valid predicate. We also challenge the constitutional validity of the prior conviction. If the client was denied counsel or if the plea was involuntary in the old case we argue that it cannot be used to support a new federal charge. This collateral attack can remove the basis for the prohibited person status.

We use the categorical approach to analyze prior convictions. We look at the statutory definition of the crime rather than the factual conduct. If the state statute for the prior crime was broader than the federal definition of a violent felony it cannot count as an ACCA predicate.

We have successfully argued that prior convictions for crimes like reckless assault or simple drug possession do not meet the strict federal criteria. Removing a single prior conviction from the calculation can drop the mandatory minimum from fifteen years to zero radically changing the sentencing landscape. This technical legal work is essential to saving clients from effectively life sentences.

Even without mandatory minimums the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for gun charges defense matters are severe. They increase penalties for stolen guns altered serial numbers or large collections.

We fight for downward variances. We present the client’s history of responsible gun ownership and lack of dangerousness. We argue that the guidelines overstate the seriousness of the offense particularly in cases of mere possession without use. We humanize the client to the judge distinguishing them from the violent criminals the guidelines were intended to punish. We present character letters and employment history to show that incarceration is not necessary to protect the public.