Consider two knife makers. One sells cooking knives. The other sells similar knives and tells people they're designed for stabbing. (The handles may be made so lifting prints off them is intentionally difficult.) Two stabbings happen, one with each of their knives. The government may have a case against the latter knife maker in being party to the crime.
Trafficking drugs is illegal. (It is also far from victimless.) If you intentionally make devices to aid drug traffickers, and then confess that to a federal agent, the government probably has a case. I say all this as someone who believes in de-criminalising most recreational drugs.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Selling drugs is victimless in the sense that there is no legal ''victim" bringing a complaint - both the seller and the buyer are generally willing participants in the transaction. This is why so many drug prosecutions must rely on stings, undercover cops, informants, surveillance, etc. This is not to say that nobody suffers any harm as a result of the drug trade.
In this particular complaint there is no victim and all the evidence comes from undercover cops and informants.
They are extremely careful with their marketing language, and I have never seen any reference to shooting another person without it being heavily couched in castle doctrine / home defense language. They're not out there marketing their wares as being better for hitmen.
This case really highlights how destructive the drug war has been to individual rights. When you have a victimless 'crime' like this where all parties to the transactions are willing participants and there is no victim to complain to law enforcement then the only way for charges to be brought is entrapment, oppressive surveillance or encroaching on fourth amendment rights. The logical progression is to attack parties providing otherwise completely legitimate and legal private and secure communications.