The defense isn't simply arguing that Bannon was ignorant. I think they're arguing that (1) the law is unclear and (2) Bannon's reasonable interpretation of the law was that he was legally obligated to act the way that he did. I'm not saying that's what actually happened, but it's a much more reasonable argument than simply saying "ignorance of the law is an excuse" would be.
Ones interpretation doesn’t matter, if I believed murder was ok because I was justified and my interpretation of the law was that it didn’t apply to me or was not applicable to what I did, that doesn’t give me a free pass. Obviously intent alters the charge, but it does not remove culpability.
The defense isn't simply arguing that Bannon was ignorant. I think they're arguing that (1) the law is unclear and (2) Bannon's reasonable interpretation of the law was that he was legally obligated to act the way that he did. I'm not saying that's what actually happened, but it's a much more reasonable argument than simply saying "ignorance of the law is an excuse" would be.
Ones interpretation doesn’t matter, if I believed murder was ok because I was justified and my interpretation of the law was that it didn’t apply to me or was not applicable to what I did, that doesn’t give me a free pass. Obviously intent alters the charge, but it does not remove culpability.