Quote: You will notice that statute covers CARRYING a weapon in a vehicle. That is why it is limited to hunting or lawful protection. If you were going to the range or taget practice, you would not be CARRYING the weapon, you would be TRANSPORTING the weapon, which would presume that the gun would at least be unloaded, if not cased.
Interesting point, but I don't think the statute supports the distinction you are making.
The distinction fails when looked at in the context of a firearm for the purposes of hunting.
If, on a deer hunting trip, my rifle is cased, unloaded, and in the trunk, I indeed have it in my car for "hunting" purposes.
But am I "carrying" it?
Under your definition of "carry" (that is, apparently, anything that is beyond mere transportation), no. Even though I am bringing the rifle from point A to point B for the purposes of hunting, I would only be "transporting" it.
But why, then, have a provision in the statute that preempts carrying a firearm for the purposes of hunting? Nobody is going to have a loaded, uncased rifle on his backseat (this is illegal, anyhow). Therefore, (almost) any hunter would necessarily be "transporting" his firearm.
Drawing a distinction between "carrying" and "transportation," then, does not make a lot of sense, because it moots the entire provision about carrying a firearm for purposes of hunting.
On the other hand, if you read the statute's "carry" as encompassing transportation, it makes sense for both self-defense purposes and hunting purposes. The statute applies whether I have (1) a loaded pistol under the seat for self-defense, or (2) an unloaded hunting rifle in the trunk.
The loaded/unloaded or cased/uncased does not make a real difference in this context. The only thing that makes a difference is the PURPOSE I am carrying the firearm for. And the statute seems to preempt local laws for two purposes: hunting, and self-defense. Doesn't matter where the firearm is in the car, or whether it's loaded (well, it matters--but that is beyond the scope of THIS PARTICULAR preemption statute).
So I stand by my original point that the statute is a little odd because it preempts transportation/carrying of firearms for self-defense and hunting, but fails to preempt transportation for any other purpose. Odd as it may seem, a municipality could conceivably ban "all carrying of firearms in cars for purposes other than hunting or self-defense" and still get away with it under this statute. I just don't think there is any distinction here between "carrying" and "transportation": the statute seems to encompass both.
