Generally, the community here does not appreciate being addressed in a condensing manner, such as by arguing points of grammar and the technical meanings of words, unless that is the topic at hand. Which does not appear to be the case here. But, since you started this…
I think I did.
I looked it up as what you suggest is not how I have heard the word used. It is defined as…
“contrary to or without regard for the law:”
“being without law; uncontrolled by a law; unbridled; unruly; unrestrained:”
“The law as such may be the criterion or standard for determining what constitutes lawlessness (as with sin in general), but at its root lawlessness is rebellion against God, whether viewed as the condition of one’s life or as specific Acts that demonstrate a determined refusal to acknowledge God.” (https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/lawlessness.html)
And this is the way I understand it. One can be lawless at a point that they break a civil or moral law, or the law as found in the bible. When one is doing that, they are lawless, at least in regards to their current action. When one is not committing such acts, they are not in a state of lawlessness.
Lawlessness can be a state of existence as you suggest, but also the result of a temporal act that then passes. So, when you speed while driving, you are committing an illegal act, you are being lawless at the moment when regard to traffic law. When you stop speeding, you are no longer breaking the law.
That statement is amazingly condescending. You will eventually be censured here if you continue such blather.
How so? When you break a law, you are operating outside of the law -> seems like lawlessness to me.