here is a passive drug trafficking crime and by that i mean we don't have a drug deal where a person brought a gun to the drug deal in a car or even set a drug deal in his house in a certain room and had guns planted around the room in case the guns were in the room though and the question is i mean one of them looking at the question here is that in further and require proof other then the possibility that had someone been in the room and tried to rob the defendant of the drugs or had there been a drug deal in the room with some other time that the gun was there for the purpose of protecting the drugs or for use by the defendant at some point can a reasonable fact finder is being used for the story and perhaps also for the distribution of drugs that firearms that are readily accessible in that same room have as their purpose  well but the question is does the government have the burden of proving something specific about the drug transaction which is involved the drug trafficking crime and how the guns would further it not just some hypothetical because really what we have here is an drug dealers are arrested with weapons nearby right on their persons in the car in the same room in the closet where the drugs are stored and it seems to me that when a note on the glass that said break in case of rape would you agree with me that that would be the possession of a weapon in furtherance of a drug distribution scheme assuming that they found all the other paraphernalia and drugs that we're not i mean that's true and lots of congress acting in response to all the cases that it is in the courts and declaring that we want to enhance the punishment for drug dealers who are caught with fire i have no would like me to safety i think it's likely that if there's violence nearby but you know the truth is that if you have a gun in your house even though you're not intending to further anything in particular someone breaks in that it's nearby you might use it to defend against whatever that person  cases where they say in your person home and property your vehicle personal language usually use is to tell is the purpose of that event and i notice that you're a green in order for you have your liberty pending trial your great have your house or where you live search that's the most found in nexus between the firearms and the drug trafficking to conclude the firearms to help further promote or advance with drug trafficking crime and the answer to that is yes and the court can reach that answer by looking at is them a case on th this particular issue should be disregarded in that what it is asking this court to do is to interpret this particular provision of nine twenty four c e in a way that would render the other provision the finding nexus the jury was with was charged with addressing and looking at the evidence with respect to the instruction i don't have in terms of what the target language was but in essence what the argument to the jury was they could consider the factors that scorches consider and that is it is not in the excerpts of record and what i would at this point to take a look at a critical well it's certainly an extremely relevant terms of how they were charged but again the evidence was overwhelming in debate within our office initially they weren't they were asked to be removed from the record is it not necessary to tell whoever made that determination at least one that was available  house was overall protection against robbery of the valuables it's certainly not implausible that given that the drugs were valued it practically half a million dollars that the firearms could have been possessed to protect the valuables including that's that's enough to let a jury find alone it would not be just mere presence but when you can look at the combination of factors that exist it does provide there's evidence here from which they could be done but the question is what do we tell the jury in terms of how do you weigh that evidence in relation to the and further what we're on i agree i have a problem with one how to interpret f if you keep using that phrase that a crime but wouldn't it be sufficient if we simply told the jury you must find from the evidence that possession of the guns promoted or facilitated the defendant's drug trafficking i don't know if