outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. While Colon does not fault the District Court for permitting Phock and Lam to testify that he had admitted possessing the gun, he argues that the additional information that he planned to shoot Face would only inflame the jury. Because the District Court explained its evidentiary ruling on the record, we review that ruling for abuse of discretion. United States v. Murray, 103 F.3d 310, 318 (3d Cir.1997). Colon cannot show such an abuse, for as we have previously held, a motive to commit gun violence may be properly admitted in a prosecution for unlawful possession of a firearm: The Dissent questions whether motive is “relevant in a case such as this ... [because] we are not faced with a situation where answering ‘w r.2003) (<HOLDING>). In light of our precedent holding that
holding that there was sufficient probable cause to search a defendants residence after evidence of drug dealing was found in his car during a traffic stop that was conducted when the defendant was coming from his residence and noting that under such circumstances a practical commonsense conclusion could be made that the drugs and money had been at the defendants residence a short time before the stop holding evidence of sexual assault relevant to show defendants motive in kidnapping victim holding that evidence that defendants residence was a drug house was relevant because it gave weems a motive to have the gun on him holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept holding extrinsic evidence of defendants motive to possess gun inadmissible where defendant did not contest the issue of motive