If it would help you hold your water, we could just adjudicate it as treason--after all, setting off a 5,000-pound explosive charge outside a Federal building IS making war against the United States.
But, what if I agreed with you here. Would you then agree that the State could not be able to prosecute for murder if it involved a federal officer?
If the feds opted to prosecute, then the state would be excluded due to double jeopardy. If the Feds, for whatever reason, opt to NOT prosecute, then the state may do so.
No, the State has the Constitutionally provided jurisdiction, its the feds usurptation of power that creates a double jeopardly scenario. That's standing law on its head to say that "States" could/should be excluded due to double jeopardy. What you are supporting is the creation of new laws that gives a new entity jurisdiction, when all such crimes that the new laws would cover are already crimes under appropriare jurisdictions. The feds having the power to punish the same crimes as the States creates double jeopardy. Period. Although the writers of the Constitution made some errors, they knew exactly what they were doing when they spelled out what crimes the feds had jurisidction over - and mured isn't one of them(for very good reasons).
Bad news, double jeopardy doesn't apply between state and federal courts. Florida has been running drug cases through the courts that way for years. They try the cause in state court and if they fail, then they let the feds have a crack at it, and you get to defend yourself all over again.