a firearm) was possessed, increase [the offense level] by two levels.” USSG § 2Dl.l(b)(l)(A). Application note 3 of the Commentary to § 2D1.1 explains: “[T]he adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. For example, the enhancement would not be applied if the defendant, arrested at his residence, had an unloaded hunting rifle in the closet.” We have consistently held that in order for § 2Dl.l(b)(l) to apply, the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a dangerous weapon was present when the crimes were committed, and that it was not clearly improbable that the weapon had some nexus with the crim inal activity. See United States v. Shields, 44 F.3d 673, 674-75 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Bost, 968 F.2d 729,
holding that unloaded firearms qualify for this enhancement recognizing firearms as common tools of the drug trade holding anticipatory warrant for search of defendants home was invalid because facts made known to magistrate did not establish at time warrant was issued the required nexus between the contraband to be seized which was mailed to defendants post office box and defendants home holding that a city which brought an action for forfeiture of firearms recovered from a drug suspects residence was collaterally estopped from introducing evidence of drug possession thus it could not prove the firearms were used in drug transactions and could not forfeit them holding enhancement not appropriate because firearms were seized from defendants home thirtyseven days after last known drug sale occurred