From the link aboveThough the village claimed Hoffman was not cited for carrying the gun, his own recording revealed the police chief saying Hoffman was "under arrest for being heavily armed."
The District 3 Court of Appeals agreed that the circuit judge should have dismissed the case at the close the state's presentation, since the evidence all suggested that the reason Hoffman was stopped was the guns.
Under state statute, merely carrying a gun is not enough reason to be guilty of disorderly conduct or similar offense unless facts suggest the armed person has some criminal or malicious intent.
Prosecutors argued that the fact Hoffman brought a voice recorder along proves he was expecting his display would alarm people and draw the police. That, they say, amounts to malicious intent because it is "spiteful, vindictive and vengeful."[my emphasis]
But the court sided with Hoffman.