The issue is NOT about his right to own one. The intelligence analyst in me is saying that is an "object out of place" and I know if I were a police officer in the field I would ask why do you have that? The kind of response that I got, and more importantly the "vibe' or attitude that I got from the respondent would determine my course of action and the attitude that I would assume. That's human nature.
I think all too often we immediately jump on the civil rights bandwagon, and try to make analogies about situations and then apply them to the lawful posession of firearms. In doing so, we frequently overlook human nature. Stopping someone and finding a police baton
is peculiar, very peculiar and is going to evoke curiousity. Good police work frequently involves stopping and interviewing "people out of place" and noting "objects out of place" or as I like to refer to it as "poops and oops"...it was a deputy sheriff who first noted that Tim McVeigh's vehicle didn't have a license plate. What could have been a routine traffic stop turned into more as McVeigh's behavior and responses just didn't seem right.
Now apparently the OP answered the question to the officer's satisfaction and in the end the baton was not a factor in anything relating to what he was finally charged with.
We want the police to be tough on criminals...the problem is the cops don't know who the good guys or the bad guys are until they ask a few questions and frankly, carrying around a police baton is queer, mighty queer and evokes an inquiry. Sorry if you are not comfortable with that and want to make analogous quantum leaps...but that is both fact and reality. In the end a person who provides a perfectly satisfactory explanation
without an attitude is not going to have a problem. Of course, there are those among us who will say it shouldn't be that way and it doesn't matter what kind of attitude we display. It well may be that is the way it is in a perfect world but not the one I live in.
Mark L.