Using or Carrying a Firearm During a Federal Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Section 924(c) is one of the most punishing statutes in the federal code — it adds a mandatory prison term, on top of and consecutive to every other sentence, whenever a firearm is connected to a drug or violent crime. If you face a § 924(c) charge, put a 924c lawyer on the predicate question before anything else, because this single count can add five, seven, ten, or more years that no judge can suspend — and the predicate is where the count is most often beaten. At Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C., we defend individuals against § 924(c) allegations nationwide within our federal firearms offenses practice.

Section 924(c) is not a stand-alone crime — it is an enhancement that rides on a predicate offense. Understanding the predicate, the firearm conduct, and the consecutive-sentencing structure is the foundation of any § 924(c) defense.

Predicate litigation is appellate-style work done at the trial level, and that is the work this firm was built around. Our principal attorney, Elizabeth Franklin-Best, has handled more than 330 federal proceedings, including over 100 appeals across all twelve federal circuits and at the United States Supreme Court, and her nationwide post-conviction and resentencing practice reaches the § 924(c) stacking and predicate questions directly. She appears in Best Lawyers in America 2026 as a “Best Lawyer” in Appellate Practice, and the firm holds a 2026 Chambers USA ranking for Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations. We approach every § 924(c) case by testing the validity of the predicate, the proof of the firearm connection, and every avenue to defeat the count. If you are facing a § 924(c) investigation or charge, begin with a paid, one-hour initial consultation.

Section 924(c): Quick Answer

Question	Answer
What is 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)?	A statute that adds a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence when a firearm is used, carried, or possessed in connection with a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence.
What must the government prove?	A valid predicate offense, and that the defendant used or carried a firearm during and in relation to it, or possessed a firearm in furtherance of it.
What penalties can apply?	A consecutive mandatory minimum of 5 years (use/carry/possess), 7 years (brandished), or 10 years (discharged) — higher for certain firearms or repeat counts.
Does the sentence run consecutively?	Yes. A § 924(c) sentence is added on top of, and runs consecutive to, the sentence for every other count.
What should happen first?	A paid, one-hour initial consultation focused on whether the predicate offense still qualifies under current law — the question that most often decides these cases.

Key Takeaways

• Section 924(c) adds a mandatory prison term when a firearm is connected to a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence.
• It is not a stand-alone crime — it depends on a valid predicate offense.
• The mandatory minimum is 5 years for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm; 7 years if brandished; 10 years if discharged.
• A § 924(c) sentence must run consecutively to — on top of — every other sentence in the case.
• The statute distinguishes “use or carry during and in relation to” a crime from “possession in furtherance of” a crime.
• Whether the predicate qualifies — particularly as a “crime of violence” — is a heavily litigated question.
• Second or subsequent § 924(c) counts carry a 25-year consecutive term; the First Step Act limited when that stacking applies.
• The validity of the predicate and the firearm-connection element are the central defenses.

What Is § 924(c)?

Section 924(c) of Title 18 is one of the most consequential sentencing statutes in federal law. It provides that any person who, during and in relation to a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime, uses or carries a firearm — or who, in furtherance of such a crime, possesses a firearm — shall be sentenced, in addition to the punishment for that underlying crime, to a separate, mandatory term of imprisonment.

Two structural features make § 924(c) so severe. First, it is a mandatory minimum — the term it sets is a floor the sentencing judge cannot go below. Second, and just as important, the § 924(c) sentence must run consecutively — it is added on top of the sentence for the underlying crime and every other count, and it cannot be served at the same time as any of them. A § 924(c) count therefore does not simply lengthen a sentence; it bolts a separate, unavoidable block of prison time onto the end of it.

Because § 924(c) is an enhancement rather than a free-standing offense, it always depends on something else — a valid predicate crime. That dependency is the starting point of the defense.

The Predicate Offense Requirement

A § 924(c) charge cannot stand without a valid predicate offense — a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence for which the defendant could be prosecuted in federal court. If the predicate fails, the § 924(c) count falls with it.

The drug trafficking crime predicate, defined in § 924(c)(2) by reference to the federal drug statutes, is generally straightforward to identify. The crime of violence predicate is not. Section 924(c)(3) once defined a crime of violence two ways, and only one survives: in United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019), the Supreme Court struck the “residual clause” of § 924(c)(3)(B) as unconstitutionally vague, leaving the “elements clause” of § 924(c)(3)(A) — which asks whether the predicate offense has, as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. Whether a particular offense qualifies under that clause is a technical, categorical inquiry, and many offenses once treated as § 924(c) predicates no longer qualify.

United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022), shows just how demanding the surviving clause is. The Court held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence: the government can prove the attempt — an intent to rob plus a substantial step — without ever proving that force was used, attempted, or threatened, so the offense fails the categorical test no matter how violent the defendant’s actual conduct may have been. The same elements-only logic applies to every predicate the government selects, with completed offenses, attempts, and conspiracies each analyzed separately.

This makes the predicate analysis one of the most important — and most fruitful — parts of a § 924(c) defense. A successful challenge to the predicate eliminates the entire § 924(c) count and the mandatory consecutive time that comes with it.

Applied Insight: The “crime of violence” question is where § 924(c) counts are most often defeated. The case law has shifted substantially, and offenses that were valid predicates a decade ago may not be valid today. Every § 924(c) defense begins by testing whether the predicate still qualifies under current law.

“Use or Carry” vs. “Possession in Furtherance”

Section 924(c) describes two distinct ways the firearm element can be satisfied, and the distinction matters.

The first is using or carrying a firearm “during and in relation to” a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. “Use” requires active employment of the firearm; “carry” requires transporting it; and “during and in relation to” requires that the firearm have some purpose or effect with respect to the crime — it cannot be mere coincidence.

The second is possessing a firearm “in furtherance of” such a crime. “In furtherance of” is a meaningful limitation: the firearm must advance, promote, or help forward the crime. The mere presence of a firearm somewhere near criminal activity is not enough — a gun in a drawer, unconnected to the offense, is not possessed “in furtherance of” it.

These connection requirements — “during and in relation to,” “in furtherance of” — are genuine elements the government must prove. Where the firearm’s link to the underlying crime is incidental or coincidental rather than functional, the § 924(c) count is contestable.

Applied Insight: A gun and drugs found in the same house do not automatically make a § 924(c) case. The government must prove the firearm furthered the drug crime — through its accessibility, its proximity to the drugs or proceeds, the type of firearm, and the circumstances. Where the connection is coincidental, the count can fall.

Penalties and “Stacking”

The mandatory consecutive term under § 924(c) is graded by the firearm conduct. The base term is 5 years for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm. It rises to 7 years if the firearm was brandished, and to 10 years if it was discharged. Certain firearms — a short-barreled rifle or shotgun, a semiautomatic assault weapon, a machine gun, a destructive device, or a firearm with a silencer — carry far higher mandatory terms. Every one of these runs consecutive to the underlying sentence.

The most extreme feature of § 924(c) is “stacking.” A “second or subsequent” § 924(c) conviction carries a 25-year consecutive term. For years, prosecutors could charge multiple § 924(c) counts in a single indictment and “stack” the 25-year terms, producing sentences of staggering length even for a first-time defendant. The First Step Act of 2018 changed this: the 25-year “second or subsequent” enhancement now applies only where the prior § 924(c) conviction was already final at the time of the later offense. That reform is significant, and understanding how it applies to a particular case is essential.

The Supreme Court added an important coda in Hewitt v. United States, 606 U.S. 419 (2025). When a pre-2018 stacked sentence is vacated — on any ground — and the defendant comes back for resentencing after the First Step Act’s effective date, the Act’s current, lower penalties govern, because a vacated sentence is no longer one that “has been imposed.” For people still serving stacked § 924(c) time, Hewitt ties post-conviction litigation directly to sentencing relief, and it belongs in any review of an older case.

One important exception to the consecutive-sentencing rule deserves its own mention. Where a death results from a § 924(c) offense, the government often charges § 924(j) instead. In Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. 453 (2023), a unanimous Supreme Court held that § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar on concurrent sentences does not govern a sentence imposed under § 924(j) — because that mandate reaches only terms imposed \”under\” subsection (c), and § 924(j) borrows subsection (c)’s elements but not its penalty rules. The practical consequence is real: a § 924(j) sentence may run concurrently with the sentence for the underlying offense, restoring a measure of sentencing discretion that § 924(c) itself forecloses. In a case charged under § 924(j), confirming that the sentencing court understood it had that discretion can be worth years.

Because every § 924(c) term is mandatory and consecutive, a § 924(c) count can be the single largest driver of a federal sentence. Defeating the count — by challenging the predicate or the firearm connection — is often the most consequential outcome a defense can achieve.

Defenses to § 924(c) Charges

No two § 924(c) cases are alike, and no lawyer can promise a result. But several defense themes recur, and matching them to the evidence is the core of building a strategy:

• Invalid predicate. The underlying offense does not qualify as a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime — the most powerful § 924(c) defense.
• No firearm connection. The firearm was not used or carried “during and in relation to,” or possessed “in furtherance of,” the predicate crime — its presence was incidental.
• Lack of possession. The defendant did not possess the firearm; mere proximity is not possession.
• Failure of the predicate itself. If the predicate offense is not proven, the § 924(c) count cannot stand.
• Fourth Amendment violations. An unlawful search or seizure can render the firearm inadmissible.
• Stacking and First Step Act issues. Ensuring the 25-year “second or subsequent” enhancement is applied only where the law permits.
• Brandished or discharged disputes. Contesting whether the firearm was brandished or discharged, which drives the mandatory term.
• Identity and attribution. The government cannot prove the defendant, rather than another person, used or possessed the firearm.

The right combination depends entirely on the facts. Our role is to test the government’s proof element by element, develop the favorable record, and press every legitimate defense — during the investigation, in pretrial motions, at trial, and on appeal.

How § 924(c) Charges Arise

Section 924(c) counts are add-on charges. They arise whenever a firearm is found in connection with a federal drug investigation or a violent-crime case — a gun recovered during the search of a stash house, a weapon found on a defendant during a drug arrest, a firearm linked to a robbery. The § 924(c) count is then layered on top of the predicate charge.

Because § 924(c) so dramatically increases exposure, it is also a significant factor in how a case is negotiated and tried. The early steps are the same as in any firearms case: do not consent to searches, decline to give an unprepared interview, preserve your rights, and consult an experienced 924c lawyer immediately — because the predicate analysis and the firearm-connection challenge are best developed from the start.

Why Work With Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C.

Section 924(c) cases reward defense lawyers who scrutinize the predicate offense against current case law, who understand the firearm-connection requirements, and who know how the First Step Act reshaped the stacking provisions.

The categorical approach, the connection elements, and the stacking rules are exactly the kind of doctrine-heavy terrain where Elizabeth Franklin-Best’s appellate background pays off: she is the author of Reversing Your Criminal Conviction, admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and all twelve federal circuits, and available in any district court through pro hac vice admission. Christopher Zoukis, the firm’s Managing Director, manages the sentencing-exposure and Bureau of Prisons analysis that a mandatory consecutive term makes unavoidable. A § 924(c) count gets our attention from the first charging document to the last appeal.

There are no guaranteed results in § 924(c) litigation, and we will never sell you one. What we deliver is the disciplined version of this defense: the predicate run through Davis and Taylor, the connection evidence dissected, the stacking math checked against the First Step Act, and a candid bottom line. If a § 924(c) charge or investigation is on your docket, schedule a paid, one-hour initial consultation.

Talk With a 924(c) Defense Lawyer

A § 924(c) count bolts mandatory, consecutive years onto a federal sentence — which is precisely why it is worth attacking early, while predicate challenges, charge negotiations, and connection defenses are all still available. A 924c lawyer who knows this terrain can change the arithmetic of an entire case. To go through yours confidentially, schedule a paid, one-hour initial consultation today; if a firearm count accompanies a possession charge, our felon-in-possession guide covers that side of the docket.