I ... was not envisioning multi million or billion dollar weapons systems. The people who responded in the WMD category probably were not thinking that either.
I mentioned the expensive delivery systems because the guy who posted just before me was talking about ICBMs and MERVs. I'll take that as evidence that at least one respondent was thinking along those lines.
As the other stuff.... that's tricky ground you're walking on.
Let's game this out, starting with the premise that someone builds a rocket-propelled chemical weapon and deploys it in a populated area. 3000 dead in one noxious go.
Let's further assume that the perpetrator lived through the deployment (not a given at all... many of these are murder/suicides as the kid in Omaha recently demonstrated).
Do we need to be able to charge him with possession of a chemical weapon? Imagine the argument... "Your honor, this isn't about thousands of innocent people dying. This isn't about thousands more with permanent injuries including diminished lung capacity, disfigurement, blindness, and worse. This is about the unlicensed possession of a destructive device as defined in 26 USC § 5845(f). The people demand that justice be done and this man be immediately remanded to custody for not less than 36 months in a federal penitentiary."
Okay....
How about possession without any intent to use? Like maybe someone who just has the weapon for the feeling of power but has no intention of harming anyone?
"Your honor, Mr. Smith would have you believe that his tanks of anhydrous ammonia and diesel fuel were 'agricultural supplies'. He will attempt to convince you that he is a 'farmer'. He will tell you tales of using these chemicals to grow 'food'. In short, your honor, he will sell you a load of fertilizer. We will demonstrate that these are the same dangerous chemicals used to attack the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and kill 168 innocent people including many children. We will demonstrate that 'farmer' Smith knew that these chemicals could be used to make deadly explosives. We will demonstrate that he had contacts over the 'internet' with many extreme anti-authority and anti-government provocateurs who led 'farmer' Smith to leave a good job in a city to commence a deliberate, slow, cold blooded, methodical attack against innocent Americans. We will show that he also possessed rockets capable of delivering deadly cargoes. We will demonstrate that, through constructive possession, Mr. 'farmer' Smith was in possession of a destructive device as defined in 26 USC § 5845(f). We will show that, without the speedy intervention of the FBI, BATF, and local law enforcement, we could today be facing a far darker situation: Thousands of lives lost in the blink of an eye. We will demonstrate that Mr. Smith deserves the maximum penalty allowed by law."
Yeah.... I'm really warming up to this. We don't do anything more to the real attackers and in trade we put anyone who owns anything that could be interpreted as a WMD in jeopardy. This is really good!
That wasn't what you were thinking either of course. The problem is that everything today is taken as a realistic threat. Arrest the airline pilot for trying to bring a pocket knife onto the plane never mind the fact that he could simply twiddle a control and everyone aboard will die.
Never mind the fact that it won't stop the people it is putatively intended to stop. If you are willing to face death by lethal injection to kill a large number of people you won't be stopped by the prospects of a few months in prison if someone catches you.
Never mind reality. "There oughtta be a law."
You can't even claim those laws have improved society. They haven't done anything to prevent any realistic threat and they have sent a lot of harmless people to jail for owning weapons that 200 years ago they would've been welcomed in town by the mayor for being concerned enough citizens to buy and maintain such expensive military weapons. Not to mention keeping you from buying 68 caliber rifles.