That's an interesting one though it has no real impact on the self-defense claims. From what I've seen neither the defense or the prosecution has presented any evidence for or against that claim outside of the defense proving it was a long barrel weapon which I think they claim means it was legal for him to be carrying and the judge has declared it to be something the jury should rule on based on his instruction on the law alone.

There's many caveats I think apply to his carrying of the weapon and the law itself is quite vague but ultimately it's a misdemeanour charge and nothing more.