U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 11B— CHEMICAL WEAPONS

18 U.S.C. § 229

Prohibited activities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Unlawful Conduct.—Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly—(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or(2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).(b)Exempted Agencies and Persons.—(1)In general.—Subsection (a) does not apply to the retention, ownership, possession, transfer, or receipt of a chemical weapon by a department, agency, or other entity of the United States, or by a person described in paragraph (2), pending destruction of the weapon.(2)Exempted persons.—A person referred to in paragraph (1) is—(A) any person, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who is authorized by law or by an appropriate officer of the United States to retain, own, possess, transfer, or receive the chemical weapon; or(B) in an emergency situation, any otherwise nonculpable person if the person is attempting to destroy or seize the weapon.(c)Jurisdiction.—Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if the prohibited conduct—(1) takes place in the United States;(2) takes place outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;(3) is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States; or(4) is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States.(Added Pub. L. 105–277, div. I, title II, § 201(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–866.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesRevocations of Export Privileges

Pub. L. 105–277, div. I, title II, § 211, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–872, provided that: “If the President determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code, that any person within the United States, or any national of the United States located outside the United States, has committed any violation of section 229 of title 18, United States Code, the President may issue an order for the suspension or revocation of the authority of the person to export from the United States any goods or technology (as such terms are defined in [former] section 16 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2415)) [former 50 U.S.C. 4618].”

[For authority of Secretary of Commerce to suspend or revoke export privileges pursuant to section 211 of Pub. L. 105–277, set out above, see section 4 of Ex. Ord. No. 13128, June 25, 1999, 64 F.R. 34703, set out as a note under section 6711 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.]

Executive DocumentsAuthority to Issue Regulations

For authority to issue regulations under this chapter, see section 3 of Ex. Ord. No. 13128, June 25, 1999, 64 F.R. 34703, set out as a note under section 6711 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: United States v. Todd Fries, 781 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Todd Fries, 781 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 15× “OPINION RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge: Appellant Todd Russell Fries (Fries) challenges his convictions for using a chemical weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 229 (a) and making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in violation of 18 U.”
Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077 (2014). · cites it 3× “It defines "chemical weapon" in relevant part as "[a] toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.”
United States v. Bond, 581 F.3d 128 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 7× “A grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charged Bond with two counts of possessing and using a chemical weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 229 (a)(1), a criminal statute implementing the treaty obligations of the United States under the 1993 Chemical Weapons…”
United States v. Bond, 681 F.3d 149 (3rd Cir. 2012). · cites it 10× “This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which vacated our earlier judgment that Appellant Carol Anne Bond lacked standing to challenge, on Tenth Amendment grounds, her conviction under the penal provision of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of…”
United States v. Ghane, 673 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “A jury convicted Hessam Ghane of stockpiling, retaining, and possessing a chemical weapon—potassium cyanide—in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 229 (a)(1) and 229A(a)(1). Ghane's conviction, obtained in December 2010, followed a previous trial in September 2010 for the same offense,…”
United States v. Kimber, 777 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “Kahn, Judge) on November 29, 2012 to an information charging him with one count of use of a chemical weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 229 (a)(1) (“Count One”), one count of possession of a chemical weapon in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Kenneth Olsen, 704 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “In April 2003 a second indictment was returned, charging Olsen with possessing a chemical weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 229 . After a twelve-day jury trial in July 2003, Olsen was found guilty of both charges.”
Bond v. United States, 180 L. Ed. 2d 269 (2011). · cites it 3× “The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 229 , was enacted to comply with a treaty; but petitioner contends that, at least in the present instance, the treaty cannot be the source of congressional power to regulate or prohibit her conduct.”
Florida Ex Rel. Attorney Gen. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “It remains true, however, that the Court has never used the "people" prong of the Tenth Amendment to invalidate an act of Congress. [1] There is also a tenth Title dedicated to amendments to these nine Titles.”
United States v. Jeff Levenderis, 806 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “In that case, the Supreme Court interpreted the statutory analogue to § 175 for chemical weapons, 18 U.S.C. § 229 , in light of federalism principles to hold that it did not cover the defendant’s “purely local” crime of using chemicals to commit a “common law assault.”
Jim Bognet v. Sec'y Commonwealth of PA, 980 F.3d 336 (3rd Cir. 2020). “The defendant in Bond challenged her conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 229 , which Congress enacted to comply with a chemical weapons treaty that the United States had entered.”
United States v. Jordie Callahan, 801 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2015). “The defendant, a microbiologist, discovered that her husband had a lover whom he had impregnated. In response, the wife obtained some toxic chemicals and spread them on various surfaces on the exterior of the girlfriend’s home, mailbox, and car, in hopes that the paramour would…”
Show all 41 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.