First of all, nothing in the Nevada Revised Statutes would make transporting a firearm in a case in your car unlawful. It is only concealed carry if you are carrying the case on your person, like in your hand. In theory, I suppose it is possible that 926A might protect you in the circumstance if the locked container was somehow upon your person while you were in your vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment. In this circumstance, I suppose it may be possible for there to be a prosecution under 202.350 if the container is somehow upon your person, for which one might proclaim 926A as a defense.
Of course, if one makes sure the locked container is not on one's person and is merely in their vehicle, they would not have to worry about 202.350 at all.
But as for the federal law, there are some interesting questions here without clear answers.
18 USC 926A
To me it appears that every county and city gains its authority from the State and for federal purposes would be considered a political subdivision thereof.Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
I don't know how the courts would interpret it, but imagine a person is traveling from Arizona to Idaho, and they pass through North Las Vegas with a firearm transported in accordance to Title 18 U.S.C. Section 926A. Suppose NRS 244.364, which in theory prevents local ordinances from regulating firearms in Nevada, is not used as a defense in court, or for some reason is held to be meaningless by dumb judges. Imagine that North Las Vegas tries to enforce municipal code 9.32.080 against this person.
Without a doubt, the very intent of Title 18 USC 926A is to shield that traveler from prosecution. This would be a case of interstate travel, and under the interstate commerce clause Congress has clear authority to make such law protecting this traveler.9.32.080 - Deadly weapon prohibited in vehicle—Exceptions.
It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession in any automobile, truck, motorcycle, or any other type of vehicle any dangerous or deadly weapon, but this restriction shall not be deemed to prohibit the carrying of ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation.
(Ord. 596 § 1, 1978: prior code § 7.22.070)
If we shake things up a bit, and a person is traveling from Henderson to Elko, and drives through North Las Vegas, it is less clear. By the sheer wording of the federal law, it seems to me that he would be protected. Yet, I can see a prosecutor arguing that it does not apply because the federal law is titled "interstate transportation of firearms" or even that it would be an unconstitutional extension of the commerce clause to limit intrastate transportation regulations.
Yet, at the same time, the Feds are more than happy to prosecute people growing medical marijuana in California for use in California, and the courts have upheld the federal prosecution despite what appears to me to be a clear lack of authority under the commerce clause.
Traveling from hotel to hotel within the same city that bans guns in cars seems even more precarious than traveling between political subdivisions in the same state, because now you are even in the same political subdivision. Does the word "place" in the federal law mean "place under a specific political subdivision" or does it actually mean "place" in the dictionary sense, as in, any place at all. If it means the latter, it seems to me that you could nearly always transport your firearms in your car despite such a municipal code, since the municipal code only proscribes guns in a vehicle and the starting point and destination (the hotels) would be legal to own and carry the firearm.
(Of course, note that if the entire political subdivision prohibits guns, whether they are in vehicles or otherwise, if you make unnecessary stops in that city, you would lose protection under 18 USC 926A... In this case, we are only talking about stopping at hotels because it is legal to carry on foot in our example.)
In theory I could see the Feds one day proclaiming that states cannot infringe on 2nd amendment rights, and using that as a justification for stopping prosecution of people transporting guns even intrastate, but we are not there yet except for purposes of the feds telling states they cannot ban ownership of handguns in the home.