Although most colloquial conversation about federal weapons restrictions centers on firearms, federal law extends its reach to biological and chemical weapons as well. 18 U.S.C. §175 criminalizes the production, acquisition, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system intended for use as a weapon. The statute’s scope is broad, encompassing attempts, threats, and conspiracy to commit such an act. Violations of §175 are punishable by any term of imprisonment, including life. “For use as a weapon” is defined within the statute as involving a purpose other than prophylactic, protective, bona fide research or other peaceful purposes.
The statute also criminalizes additional offenses under §175(b). §175(b) encompasses production, acquisition, or possession of a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system that cannot be reasonably justified by a research or otherwise peaceful purpose. Notably, these offenses do not require the intended purpose of “use as a weapon,” and merely require a lack of reasonable peaceful purpose. §175(b) specifically excludes naturally occurring biological agents or toxins, if they were extracted from the natural source rather than cultivating the source. Violations of §175(b) are punishable by up to 10 years of imprisonment.
The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a conviction for a biological weapons offense in United States v. Jones, No. 23-10227, 2024 WL 1554865 (11th Cir. Apr. 10, 2024). In Jones, the defendant manufactured ricin, which he put inside a toy water gun with the intent of using the water gun on his estranged wife. The Court found that his actions were a violation of §175(b), which covers additional offenses related to biological weapons. The defendant was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, which was affirmed on appeal.
Federal law also defines certain chemical weapons offenses. Such offenses are covered by 18 U.S.C. §229. This section makes it unlawful for a person to knowingly develop, acquire, possess, use, or threaten to use any chemical weapon, or assist or induce anyone else or conspire to commit any such act. The statute contains exceptions for departments and agencies within the United States government, and any person authorized by law or in appropriate United States Office to possess the chemical weapon. Additionally, when facing a chemical weapon emergency, a nonculpable person may possess a chemical weapon in order to seize or destroy the weapon.
The penalties for committing a chemical weapons offense are outlined in 18 U.S.C. §229A. Offenses are subject to both criminal and civil penalties. Criminally, §229 violations are treated severely, with offenders facing a sentence of any term of years in prison, including life or the death penalty in jurisdictions where the death penalty is applicable. Civil penalties can reach up to $100,000 per violation, not precluded by any other civil, criminal, or administrative remedies. The offender may also be required to reimburse the United States for any costs incurred by the seizure, handling, and destruction of the chemical weapons involved in the offense.
The United States Supreme Court analyzed the bounds of the federal chemical weapons statute in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 189 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2014). In Bond, the defendant was convicted of a chemical weapons offense after spreading two toxic chemicals on a car belonging to Bond’s husband’s affair partner. On review, the Court held that §229 was directed at acts of war, assassination, and terrorism, rather than simple assault covered by state police power. This ruling aligns with the well-established principle that local criminal activity is the responsibility of the states, rather than federal law, limiting the scope of §229 accordingly.
Overall, federal law prohibiting the use of biological and chemical weapons targets severe offenses and allows for harsh sentences. Biological and chemical weapons, although exploitable for local crimes, relate closely to federal terrorism concerns, and the acquisition and transport of such weapons often involves interstate commerce, granting the United States government authority to regulate these weapons on a federal level. However, both §175 and §229 give way to the established principles of state jurisdiction over local crime, instead directing their focus towards larger-scale crimes involving federal interests.
If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case in the Northern District of Alabama, Middle District of Alabama, Southern District of Alabama, or any federal jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit, including Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, contact Joe Ingram or Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.