I'm checking for a relative who is getting ready to turn 18. I've had a CHP for a few decades, and this law is only a half dozen years old, so I've not had to worry about it before. And yes, he's safe, upstanding, respectful, and an exceptional shot, so I'd not have any qualms with him being armed where legal.

As the relative will be under 21, a CHP is not an option for now. The law requires the firearm to be "properly secured in a container or compartment within the vehicle" (ie glove box, center console, trunk, etc). The container/compartment does not have to be locked, the firearm may be within the reach of the driver or a passenger, and the firearm may be loaded."

Everything I've uncovered during my research has only listed the glove box or center console as acceptable compartments within the vehicle. I have not seen any clear reference to a "container" and what that may be.

Per my layman's understanding, it sounds to me as though a separate pistol case or "container" could meet the intent of this law. Is that a correct interpretation, or is the container intended to be an integral part of the vehicle as the compartments that are listed are? If the latter, could a mounted pistol safe (under the seat for example) then be acceptable?

A proper case ought to do it.

The idea behind it is simply that the gun not be immediately accessible, like when you decide flipping someone the bird isn't enough.

I'd think at a minimum a pistol case should do it, and I'd probably go with the NV gun vault with the combo lock for the right mix of quick and easy access and legal sufficiency.

Thank you. That was my interpretation as a non-lawyer, but was looking for some confirmation (or correction) as I've not located any references anywhere that mention anything other than the glove box and center console (all references seemed to focus on the compartment instead - I know those were what were explicitly mentioned in the AG's statement on the law to clarify that "secure" meant "closed" and did not require it to be "locked" so think people are just parroting that).

So it sounds like it's more along the old Florida "two step" process where the firearm is not immediately accessible, as you noted.

He was thinking about using a zippered case between his front seats as his center console isn't large enough to hold his pistol. I was hoping that would be considered a container under the law as that space is pretty tight. I'll maybe try a NanoVault (which you mentioned) there to see if it will work for him as I have one somewhere.

So I've had this same question for quite some time until recently I got to talking to a lawyer and local LEO in Chesapeake. According to both the "container" that a loaded firearm resides in, while in a vehicle, most be affixed to the vehicle in a manner preventing easy removal. This is why a glove-box or center console are listed. Other means of closed container may be used but they must be "permanently" affixed; (i.e. hard sided pistol case or small safe bolted to the frame). I just put a small biometric safe under my passenger seat and bolted it down for when I have to leave my firearm in the car, otherwise it just stays in the center or glove box depending on what I'm carrying that day.

Doesn't define "container" as having to be affixed or mounted in the vehicle. By this definition could be a briefcase or a damn lunchbox.
All due respect to LEOs and lawyers, but their opinions aren't worth spit.

18.2-308(C)(10)

That is not in the statute. In fact, the statute says " Any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private motor vehicle or vessel and such handgun is secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel"

The key here is "IN" the vehicle...not OF the vehicle.....OF meaning from the vehicle or as part of the vehicle.......That's just my former LE brain just reading the statute. I would have no problem with a secured (not locked) gun case, laptop bag, lunch box, etc.

Hasn't been litigated. There's an AG opinion on what Secured means (closed, doesn't have to be locked), and Dan Hawes has put up a brief for lawyers to use with regard to what Secured means.

The container part is not defined, nor has it been laid out in case law that I've seen. Container is certainly ambiguous; it could mean anything from a center console to a paper lunch sack.

I don't know where the guy got the information that it has to be a hardened part of the vehicle.

 Now someone correct me if I am wrong I don't want to spread bs, but can't the firearm still be open carried and only acceptable without a CHL being concealed in a container?  IE you can't just throw it under the seat or something silly like that.

Yes, you can still open carry.
You can have it, loaded, in a secured container WITHOUT having a CHL.
Just under the seat or hidden under a newspaper on the seat is concealed.

Thanks for the additional discussion, all.

I'd not looked back in for a few days as I'd seen no activity after the first respondent (don't think I can get alerted as a non team member - need to re up at some point).

Although disappointing that there's not a clear definition of this, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who's had this question. Yes, by reading it as a layman, I'm inclined to think one could put the pistol in a zippered case between the front seats as he wants to do, but of course was hoping that there was either case law or policy statements somewhere that confirmed that.

In doing a little more searching, and looking at HODGES v. COM, which led me back to Doulgerakis v. Commonwealth, I see the following statement:
The Court then defined "secured" as "in safekeeping or custody" or "well-fastened."

This was restating the AG statement that secured only means closed and "such storage tool need not be locked."

And another law site interprets this as:
After Doulgerakis it appears that as long as a weapon is contained in a closed container inside of a vehicle it is not considered concealed.

But, back to Homes, the court felt that the container must not only be closed but also "latched" to meet the requirement of "secured."

So, as a couple posters have suggested, I feel there is no question that an attached and locked case would absolutely meet/exceed the requirements of the exception. But I think an unattached container that was somehow fastened (pistol case with sliding latches, etc.) would also meet them. Now - would a zipper meet the requirements of "secured?" This comes back to his car has room for a zippered case in between the front seats, and no other clear options exist for legal storage within arms reach (glove box and center console do not have enough room for his pistol). I THINK zippered would be considered "secured" as it does not allow immediate access while also being concealed from the common view, but still seeing if anyone has clear direction as I want to give my relative as accurate advise as possible.

The original bill actually said "locked" when it hit the governor's desk. He changed it to "secured"/

First of all, the governor does not have the authority to do that.

Secondly, in a discussion about this law, the AG said that the General Assembly had discussed the terms "locked" and "secured", and had decided to use the word "secured".

I don't see a police officer giving a shit.  My 2 cents.

I just can't see it, but I've been wrong before

Virginia does not use legislative discussion  in interpreting laws.

This is the Federal System of trying to divine 'legislative intent' from the Congressional Record.
Virginia looks only to the strict language of the law as passed and signed.

Virginia has been at this for longer than we have had a Federal Government.

Can you imagine trying to have a Daily Record of every word in the days of quill pens?

We did not have a Court of Appeals' until the early 1970s.
Appeals went to the State Supreme Court.
This is why they remain solid to this day.

The Court of Appeals can, in fact, look to the legislative history of a bill.  

" In 2010, the General Assembly enacted subsection (B)(10) of the amendment exempting the prohibition of concealed handguns from personal vehicles in certain circumstances. History of that amendment indicates that the General Assembly specifically chose to omit the term “locked” from the statute. Initially, the General Assembly adopted the amendment that contained the language that a gun must be “locked in a container or compartment” within the vehicle. However, the [Page 421] Governor's recommended change to the amendment replaced the word “locked” with “secured.” Journal of the House of Delegates 1658-59, Reg. Sess. (2010). In accepting the Governor's proposed change, the legislature made it clear that in this amendment, “secured” does not mean “locked.” Had the legislature intended for “secured” and “locked” to be synonymous, they would have disregarded the Governor's recommendation and adopted the amendment as originally written. Thus, under the facts presented here, we find that having the gun in a locked glove compartment is not a prerequisite for applying the Code § 18.2-308(B)(10) exemption."

Doulgerakis v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 417, 420-421, 737 S.E.2d 40, ___ (2013)

Since they only keep minutes there is not a lot to look at.
Interview Members of the House?

Regurgitating what has already been said. No, the container does not have to integral to the vehicle. The intent is that you cannot simply grab it without first opening a container. So a lunch box, attaché, pistol rug, etc is fine.

Except the lawyers have not had much of a shot at it yet.

Even the House of Delegates refused to consider a statute law for 'stand your ground' since we have very good case law (State Supreme level) and any new law would give the lawyers 'another shot' to litigate and there are now three levels and not just two.

IIRC VCDL had a blurb about this in one of their VA-ALERTs and their opinion was that any type of container that closed would suffice.  Cardboard box, tupperware, backpack, literally anything that could contain something else.

Do not do stupid things that attract attention and a traffic stop will become rare for you.

Wrong.  Governors frequently make changes like that to bills and send them back to the GA.  If the GA accepts the changes, then he can proceed to sign.  If not, he can veto.

He force the change under threat of veto.

If the Legislature does NOT agree the bill is considered vetoed.