items listed in the warrant to permit the seizure of the unnamed items within the “plain view” doctrine. United States v. Jefferson, 714 F.2d 689, 695 (7th Cir.1983). Given the criminal nature of the drug operation contemplated by the warrant, the court finds that the seized firearms were sufficiently incriminating and, thus, that the necessary “logical nexus” exists in the present case. The Seventh Circuit has held that the seizure of weapons does not exceed the scope of valid search warrant since police may reasonably believe that the guns were involved in the alleged dealing of illegal drugs as evidenced by the items properly discovered during the search. United States v. Reed, 726 F.2d 339, 344 (7th Cir.1984); see also, United States v. Alvarez, 860 F.2d 801, 829-30 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the police officers’ seizure of the
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 that guns were properly admitted to  prove intent to distribute drugs because it has uniformly been recognized that substantial dealers in narcotics possess firearms and that such weapons are as much tools of the trade as more commonly recognized drug paraphernalia holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade recognizing firearms as common tools of the drug trade recognizing the inherent danger in stopping those suspected of drug trafficking for which guns are known tools of the trade