I’m not a lawyer either, but this feels a bit like a shotgun blast of reasoning for the bill that will surely confuse the courts when they have to interpret it.

Eg I haven’t finished reading it, but it cites Heller on the first page and enshrines that AI is/can be used for self defense. That feels like a huge can of worms for the court, because now every 2A case in our history is relevant to any AI bill.

I also don’t know that it will accomplish what the author intends. Even if we hypothetically establish that AI use is covered by the first and second amendments, the government can still regulate it if they can pass strict scrutiny, ie if they have a worrisome enough complaint.

What the author wants, at the level of certainty they want it, would require a constitutional amendment and dismantling the strict scrutiny system. No idea what the impact of that would be, but my wild guess is “probably bad”.