So, we have to ask: Was Stephen Paddock a terrorist?

[pnwmom]

90. Why couldn't he have been prosecuted under Nevada law, if he had survived? That's where the murders

occurred. You are aware that murders are routinely prosecuted under state laws, aren't you? Under your point of view, the Nevada terrorism law would never come into play.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-federal-prosecution.html

In order for the government to have power to regulate any kind of behavior, it must have “jurisdiction.” In most cases, jurisdictional issues are straightforward—the crime occurs within a particular state’s boundaries, violating that state’s laws, and therefore giving that state the power to prosecute. Likewise, a crime that occurs on federal property—for example, Yellowstone National Park—authorizes the feds to deal with the suspect. But some crimes violate both state and federal law, enabling both governments to bring criminal charges. (Some crimes, on the other hand, are left only to the states—see Supreme Court: Why a Love Triangle Isn’t Chemical Warfare.)

SNIP

In many instances, one government with jurisdiction over an offense will defer to another. The deferring government will step in only if the other prosecution fails. That said, sometimes both governments will pursue criminal charges.