Adequate statutes exist; all that's necessary is for a state prosecutor's office to start enforcing them.
If state law says that certain municipal ordinances are void, then nobody who can't demonstrate why the state law isn't valid can have any valid reason for believing the municipal ordinances to be valid. Someone who detains another without reasonably believing he is authorized to do so is a robber or a kidnapper (depending upon the length and nature of the detention).
While I recognize that a prosecutor's office is subject to political pressures, is there any legal reason a state prosecutor couldn't invite persons who have been unlawfully detained by cops to file complaints with him. If Citizen Fred complains that Joe Cop detained him, and Joe Cop can't convince a jury that he had a legitimate reason for believing that Fred did something that was actually illegal, then Joe Cop is guilty of robbery or kidnapping (the particulars of the case would determine which).
What's important is to recognize that void statutes are illegitimate, and any attempted enforcement actions would be likewise illegitimate. Further, by definition, illegitimate actions form no part of any government agent's legitimate duties; while government agents carrying out their legitimate duties may legitimately have certain legal protections, such protections cannot be legitimately applied to government agents acting in ways they cannot reasonably believe to be legitimate.
The problem here is not so much void ordinances, although there’s a bit of that, but the concealed carry licensing system. The law says they must issue or deny within 14 days, for instance, but there’s no penalty if they don’t, only the ability for the applicant to sue them in district court.