Until you go to a US court, you probably think it's that simple. This is very wrong.

There are plenty of US laws that are so broad (or narrow) that nothing or everything fits or are so badly written as to be ineffectual. There are also silly laws in place, which are not enforced. The act is likely going to be adjudicated based on current prevailing influence holders, of the time and area. This is why moving jurisdiction is typically the simplest way to indemnify a defendant.

Take the levels of scrutiny applied to laws and regulations in equal protection lawsuits, for example. Why is judicial review for racial discrimination covered under strict scrutiny, but sex discrimination only covered under intermediate scrutiny? There's no statute prescribing this—American courts invented it.

This reminds me of a question on the US immigration card for non-citizens - it asks if the traveler intends to rob a bank. If you want to be let in, you have to check "no" of course, but anyone who then robs a bank while on vacay will face an additional perjury charge.

I'm not sure if this accomplishes anything other than the usual "tough on crime" stuff.