Federal Gun Charges — Felon in Possession & Firearms Offenses

Federal firearms defense attorney Tonmiel Rodriguez — Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer in Bartow, Florida — defends clients charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (felon in possession), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms in furtherance of a drug crime or crime of violence), and related federal firearm statutes in the Middle District of Florida. Federal gun charges carry mandatory minimum sentences, and cases involving prior convictions can trigger the Armed Career Criminal Act, adding decades to a potential sentence. Call (863) 774-4556 — 24/7 availability, Hablamos Español.

Legally reviewed by Tonmiel Rodriguez, Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer — last reviewed June 2026.

Federal firearm charges frequently arise alongside drug trafficking, robbery, or other federal offenses — and the § 924(c) mandatory consecutive sentence can easily add five to ten years or more on top of the underlying offense. Understanding exactly which statutes apply, whether prior convictions qualify under the ACCA, and what constitutional challenges are available under post-Bruen Second Amendment law are all essential parts of the defense.

What Is Federal Felon in Possession Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)?

18 U.S.C. § 922(g) makes it a federal crime for any person in a prohibited category to possess any firearm or ammunition in or affecting interstate commerce. Prohibited persons include:

• Convicted felons — any person convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison
• Persons convicted of qualifying misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence
• Persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders
• Persons adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution
• Unlawful users of or persons addicted to controlled substances
• Illegal aliens
• Persons who have renounced U.S. citizenship
• Persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
• Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by more than one year (for receipt of firearms)

The interstate commerce element is satisfied by the fact that virtually every commercially manufactured firearm has traveled in interstate commerce at some point. The government’s proof typically consists of the firearm’s make, model, and manufacturer — establishing that it was made outside Florida and therefore traveled in interstate commerce.

What Are the Penalties for § 922(g)?

The standard maximum penalty for felon in possession under § 922(g) is 10 years in federal prison. However, the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), imposes a mandatory minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life for defendants with three or more prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. The difference between a standard § 922(g) and an ACCA-enhanced § 922(g) is enormous — and it depends entirely on how the prior convictions are legally classified under current Supreme Court precedent.

What Is 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) — Firearms in Furtherance of a Crime?

18 U.S.C. § 924(c) imposes mandatory minimum sentences that run consecutively to the underlying offense for anyone who uses, carries, or possesses a firearm during and in relation to — or in furtherance of — a federal drug trafficking crime or crime of violence. The mandatory consecutive terms are:

• Possession in furtherance: 5 years consecutive
• Brandishing: 7 years consecutive
• Discharge: 10 years consecutive
• Short-barreled rifle or shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon: 10 years consecutive
• Machine gun, destructive device, or silencer: 30 years consecutive
• Second or subsequent § 924(c) conviction: 25 years consecutive, mandatory

The consecutive nature of the sentence is what makes § 924(c) so severe. A defendant convicted of federal drug trafficking carrying a 10-year sentence, plus a § 924(c) charge for having a gun nearby, is looking at a minimum of 15 years in federal prison — before any other enhancements.

What Is the Armed Career Criminal Act?

The ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), applies when a defendant convicted under § 922(g) has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. Under the ACCA, the standard 10-year maximum becomes a 15-year mandatory minimum with a life maximum. The prior convictions can come from state or federal court, and they do not need to have been served consecutively.

What Qualifies as a Violent Felony Under the ACCA?

The definition of “violent felony” under the ACCA has been significantly narrowed by the Supreme Court. In Johnson v. United States (2015), the Court struck down the residual clause of the ACCA as unconstitutionally vague. In Borden v. United States (2021), the Court held that offenses with a mens rea of recklessness cannot qualify as violent felonies. As a result, many prior convictions that prosecutors treated as ACCA predicates are no longer qualifying offenses.

Challenging ACCA applicability — analyzing each prior conviction against current Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent — can be the most important legal issue in a federal firearms case. A defendant who was improperly classified as an ACCA offender is serving a significantly longer mandatory minimum than the statute requires.

Second Amendment Challenges Post-Bruen

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court established a new framework for Second Amendment challenges: firearm regulations must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Post-Bruen, district courts across the country have been evaluating challenges to various provisions of § 922(g), with some courts finding that certain applications are unconstitutional. The Eleventh Circuit is currently working through these issues. This rapidly evolving area of constitutional law is worth analyzing in every federal firearms case involving a categorical prohibition.

What Are the Defenses to Federal Firearm Charges?

Was There Actual or Constructive Possession?

The prosecution must prove the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm — actual physical possession or constructive possession (dominion and control with knowledge). In shared spaces, vehicles with multiple occupants, or residences shared with others, mere proximity does not equal possession. Contesting whether the defendant actually had dominion and control over the specific firearm — and whether the defendant knew it was present — is a primary defense.

Was the Search Lawful?

Firearms discovered during vehicle stops, home searches, or person searches must be found lawfully. An unlawful stop lacking reasonable suspicion, a home search without a valid warrant, or an unconstitutional pat-down can result in suppression of the firearm — and a § 922(g) charge without the firearm as evidence cannot proceed.

Does the Prior Conviction Actually Qualify as a Predicate?

A § 922(g) conviction requires a prior conviction for a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Some prior offenses that appear to qualify may not — for example, certain misdemeanors enhanced by state law, or offenses with maximum sentences at exactly one year. The Rehaif v. United States (2019) decision also added a knowledge element: the prosecution must prove the defendant knew he fell within a prohibited category at the time of possession.

Related: Federal Crimes | Federal Drug Charges | Federal Fraud

Frequently Asked Questions About Federal Firearm Charges

What Is the Nexus to Interstate Commerce Required for Section 922(g)?

Every section 922(g) charge requires proof that the firearm “has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” This element is nearly always satisfied by the simple fact that the firearm was manufactured outside the state where it was found. Most commercially manufactured firearms were made in other states or countries and transported to their current location — which means virtually every firearm a defendant possesses satisfies the interstate commerce element. The government typically proves this with a firearms nexus certification from the ATF showing the make, model, manufacturer, and state of manufacture. Contesting the nexus element is rarely viable except in cases involving entirely locally made or assembled firearms, which are uncommon.

What Is the Rehaif Knowledge Requirement for Section 922(g)?

In Rehaif v. United States (2019), the Supreme Court held that the government must prove that the defendant knew they fell within a prohibited category — for example, knew they were a convicted felon — at the time they possessed the firearm. Before Rehaif, the government only needed to prove that the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm, not that the defendant knew they were prohibited from possessing it. After Rehaif, the government must prove both.

This decision has practical significance in cases where the defendant’s prohibited status was not necessarily obvious: defendants who received deferred adjudication dispositions that may or may not constitute a “conviction” under section 921(a)(20), defendants convicted in foreign proceedings, defendants whose prior offenses were misdemeanors with maximum sentences at exactly one year, and defendants whose mental health adjudications were not clearly communicated as prohibiting firearms possession. The Rehaif knowledge element should be analyzed carefully in every section 922(g) case.

What Is the Difference Between a Section 924(c) Conviction and an ACCA Enhancement?

These are two distinct sentencing mechanisms that dramatically increase federal firearm sentences:

Section 924(c) is charged as a separate count when a defendant uses, carries, or possesses a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime or crime of violence. It imposes a mandatory consecutive sentence on top of the underlying offense — 5 years minimum for possession in furtherance, 7 for brandishing, 10 for discharge. The section 924(c) charge is what causes the overall sentence to skyrocket in drug trafficking and robbery cases where a firearm was present.

The ACCA (18 U.S.C. section 924(e)) applies when a defendant convicted under section 922(g) has three prior qualifying convictions. It does not add a new count — it changes the sentencing range on the existing section 922(g) count from a 10-year maximum to a 15-year mandatory minimum with a life maximum. The ACCA determination depends entirely on whether the prior convictions qualify under current Supreme Court precedent.

In a case where a defendant has prior qualifying convictions AND possesses a firearm during a drug crime, both the ACCA enhancement and the section 924(c) consecutive sentence could theoretically apply simultaneously, though the interaction of these provisions is technically complex and requires careful analysis.

What Are the Defenses Specific to ATF Prosecutions?

Many federal firearm cases in the Middle District of Florida are prosecuted with ATF involvement. ATF conducts undercover firearms trafficking investigations, straw purchase sting operations, and FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) compliance inspections that generate criminal referrals. Defenses specific to ATF-generated cases include:

• Entrapment in undercover transactions: ATF undercover operations buying or selling firearms can raise entrapment defenses if the agent induced a transaction the defendant was not predisposed to engage in.
• Straw purchase cases — who actually owned the firearm? Straw purchases (buying a firearm on behalf of a prohibited person) are charged under section 922(a)(6), which requires a false statement on the ATF Form 4473. Whether the statement was actually false — and whether the buyer intended to immediately transfer the firearm versus purchase it for personal use with a later transfer — is a genuine legal question after Abramski v. United States (2014).
• FFL inspection-generated cases: Firearms dealers whose records show missing inventory can be prosecuted under section 922(m) for failing to maintain required records. Defenses include bookkeeping errors, legitimate transfers not properly recorded, and challenges to the adequacy of the ATF inspection methodology.

What Is the Impact of a Federal Firearms Conviction on Future Rights?

A federal firearms conviction — whether under section 922(g) or any other provision — has lifelong consequences beyond the prison sentence. Once convicted of a federal firearms offense:

• The defendant’s prohibition on possessing firearms becomes permanent under federal law and cannot be restored through state-level restoration of civil rights in most circumstances
• Federal law bars the defendant from living with anyone who legally possesses firearms in most circumstances
• The conviction appears on federal background check systems permanently and disqualifies the defendant from firearms purchase under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for life
• Employment in law enforcement, security, and many government positions becomes permanently unavailable
• The conviction can affect child custody determinations, housing eligibility, and professional licensing

These lifetime collateral consequences underscore the importance of challenging the charges at every stage — from suppression motions through trial — rather than accepting a plea without a full defense assessment.