I read that if he wasn't carrying identification and a permit, his 'lawful carry' becomes 'unlawful', however there seems to be mixed stories about the ID with some reports saying he didn't have 'accessible ID' which is a little ambiguous.
Other opinions out there are that by violently resisting arrest, the 'lawful carry' again becomes 'unlawful'.
It is not ambiguous. It is meaningless nonsense. They are admitting that he had ID. It has turned out that everything DHS and ICE said was a lie. Even the White House are now refusing to repeat any of those lies.
