I think the crux of this matter is not so much is it unlawfull to have MA weapons at home, as SHOULD it be unlawfull to do so.
This raises some important issues. How far does the state have the right to interefer in your personal life, particularly if you are of previous good character? Is it enough for the state to presume you can't be trusted to keep certain weapons and use them appropriately, or should there be some substance to that belief?
It is hard to see how possessing nunchuks is really that different from keeping a Jo staff at home, and if you have a broom you have a makeshift jo, so where does it end? I think it should be encumbent on the state to show why you can't keep nunchuks at home, but I also think the trade off should come if you were ever to use them to cause injury, and the sentence should reflect the degree of pre-meditation in keeping weapons in the first place.
I'd be interested to hear the outcome of you case.