I should have elaborated why I made my statement. The AG"s defense was that Hi has never enforced it, so the lawsuit should be moot. Even though it's still on the books as law. But someone was arrested in 1996 for having a baton at the airport. I don't' remember if he was prosecuted and found guilty or not charged. Since this also happened recently, the legislative session is over it's too late to change the law. Their negotiation was held only recently.
So with this week defense, it had me believe that the state wasn't arrogant in thinking that they could defend against the lawsuit, but forgot about it this session. And to avoid paying atty fee's, the state could have changed the law at request of the AG's office like how they did with Tasers as that lawsuit was coming to a close and the state was going to lose.
This is just IMO based on the info that I have, and I have no proof that they forgot about it. Like someone in the AG's office saying oops.
Our state's lawyers are idiots.
Courts have ruled many times that, even though a law is not being enforced (policy, lack of resources, don't care), the law still exists and represents a restriction or prohibition against law-abiding citizens. Those restrictions/prohibitions represent real injury to the public at large who might need/want to carry such self defense tools.
It's a chicken vs. egg argument. Are they not enforcing it because nobody is breaking that law? Or, is nobody breaking that law, because they are afraid it may be enforced? Policy is not law, and most people don't know what enforcement policies exist. They only see the laws and avoid breaking them -- even when the law makes no sense or causes damages or injury to themselves. Law-abiding citizens are all about avoiding negative consequences. The mere existence of the law impedes the public's free exercise of their liberties.
If there is valid justification why that law isn't being enforced, then that should also justify repealing it. Seems pretty logical.
If the legislature can't do their job and repeal laws that are being ignored by enforcement agencies, then the courts need to step in and officially ban enforcement through injunctions. Otherwise, It's a booby trap just waiting for a DA who can't get an indictment for some larger crime to decide the suspect carrying a baton is fair game. Unfortunately, the courts don't get involved unless someone either sues or a defendant claims unequal treatment under the law.