crime under § 924(c)). Further, not one of these firearms was registered to Moore, as required by 26 U.S.C. § 5841. See Mackey, 265 F.3d at 462 (noting that the legality of a gun is a relevant factor to consider in order to determine whether it was possessed in furtherance of a drug crime under § 924(c)). In support of his claim, Moore argues that he merely collected these guns. This argument is on the one hand perfectly reasonable, as given the sheer quantity of firearms found at his home, we have little doubt that Moore was quite the gun enthusiast. But the mere fact that Moore accumulated this arsenal for one purpose — i.e., it was his hobby — does not foreclose our finding that he also possessed the guns for the purpose of facilitating his drug offense. See Hardin, 248 F.3d at 498 (<HOLDING>). Further supporting this dual purpose is the
holding admissible police officers testimony that firearms are commonly used in drug trafficking 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 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 a firearm could be used both to protect the defendants spouse and to facilitate the defendants drug trafficking crimes recognizing the connection between guns and drug trafficking