and had heard about his having guns. On the second question, we, again like the district court, conclude that the affidavit, shorn of any tainted info, contained ample facts to support probable cause to search Ponzo’s abode. Arguing against this conclusion, Ponzo claims the neighbor’s comment that he “had gone to a shooting range ... four months earlier [a] was fruit of the poisonous tree, [b] too stale to provide probable cause, and [c] did not support a finding that he would have firearms at his residence.” We reject claim [a] because agents got the info from an independent interview with the neighbor. Wé reject claim [b] because “firearms, unlike drugs, are durable goods useful to their owners for long periods of time.” United States v. Singer, 943 F.2d 758, 763 (7th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Neal, 528 F.3d
holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense holding that employers statements to plaintiff that he was stale set in his ways and that the company needed a new focus were not direct evidence holding that sixmonthold info about a firearm was not stale holding that in a prosecution for possession of an unregistered firearm evidence of an armed robbery committed with the firearm was admissible