https://www.youtube.com/@LafayetteSystems is similar project, also by actual defense contractor, and less opensource.
There is no consideration in the law whether he actually plans to use it or ever meant any violence, nor any consideration of whether it violates ITAR.
As someone who has a lot of interest in weapons law, this is probably about the only kind of weapon that can't be even legally contemplated in the USA, worst case for almost anything else you can get an NFA stamp. The USA is absolutely paranoid about yielding their air power so they come down like a ton of bricks against anyone that might want to defend against that.
INAL, so I would like to understand why you think this applies?
Look up MANPADS[1] and find out what that is, it appears to pretty clearly satisfies (A).
Then look at (B) and note a launcher that merely intends to launch something that satisfies (A) counts, and then note he straight up calls it a MANPADS launcher prototype. There is no requirement that it actually be capable of doing so.
Also note in his other short, the guy shows a network of cameras doing tracking of a drone[2] and claims that is an intended guidance system. He claims the guidance is updated to the rocket while in flight, with his diagram clearly showing the target as the emblem of an aircraft.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_syste... [2] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/85oI725HPPU
IANAL
Note they started adding the "interstate commerce" in there after the first version of the gun-free school zone act was found unconstitutional. Which then continued on to do the exact same thing when amended.
It's a distinction without difference.
Post Wickard v Filburn, mere possession of something has been found to be interstate commerce even if it's just a plant grown on your own property for your own consumption without ever entering interstate commerce. Note the controlled substance act depends on the same interstate commerce clause but they've upheld federal convictions for simple possession without showing any actual effect to commerce -- instead arguing that they've influenced interstate commerce by deciding to not participate in it and that if people did that in aggregate it would affect interstate commerce therefore it is interstate commerce. Complete madness obviously, but that's where we are.
"In Lopez, the Court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale. (In a later case, United States v. Morrison, the Court ruled in 2000 that Congress could not make such laws even when there was evidence of aggregate effect.)"