Meist1

Depends on the lock and the method of attack you are using - CFAA violations are usually tied to 18 USC §1030 (4) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030), which only apply to "protected computer[s]"

A computer is protected (18 USC §1030(e)(2)) in generally one of three circumstances - i) Used exclusively by a financial institution; ii) Used exclusively by the US Gov't; or iii) Affects foreign commerce or communication [usually interpreted to mean connected to the Internet]

Therefore, if you are using a non-internet connected device (i.e. Bluetooth or NFC only), it's unlikely to be a violation of the CFAA.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE, SEEK YOUR OWN LICENSED ATTORNEY

As far as the CFAA, you may have a point. However, the EFF is spot on when it comes to the DMCA, which does in fact allow for speech to be restricted even when no identifiable 'hack' under the CFAA is alleged. The MBTA case is probably the most famous - https://www.wired.com/2008/08/eff-to-appeal-r/

Also, while not approving of 'weev' or his methods, I think most on HN and elsewhere would agree that merely visiting a website should not be considered a hack - https://www.wired.com/2013/03/att-hacker-gets-3-years/ - adding an additional layer to this mess.