It doesn't set a legal precedent of much significance, because in the USA there are people who own tanks, artillery and helicopter gunships. It doesn't make se

It doesn't set a legal precedent of much significance, because in the USA there are people who own tanks, artillery and helicopter gunships. It doesn't make sense to be so alarmed by it. People who own heavy weapons overwhelmingly use them for lawful purposes. This is true of people who own guns, as well. We can't treat every potentially dangerous thing as if it is a clear, present danger: that is like treating all drivers as "potential drunk drivers". You can't write policy around that.