Yes but it says securly encased OR not readily accessible for immediate use. Not readily accessible doesn't apply when the weapon is securely encased with the way the law reads. There is no requirement that it be both securly encased and not readily accessible from what I'm seeing in the law.
But that is only in 790.25(5) which, by the way, requires a handgun to be concealed.
790.25(3)(l)
A person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is securely encased [which 'snapped in a holster' is]. . .
on the other hand does not contain the
readily accessible language and explicitly supersedes the Open Carry, Concealed Carry and licensing requirements.
There is only one appellate case (the defendant lost and his conviction upheld) that addresses the 'conflict' between these two statutes. But it's not a very good one because #1 the defendant had an idiot for an attorney - himself and #2 the court came to the conclusion (how, I have no idea) that 790.25(5) '
clarifies' 790.25(3)(l).
I'm pretty confident that if this guy had a real attorney, specifically a firearms attorney, he would have likely won at the appeal court (at least on the concealed firearm charge), but if not there, certainly at the Supreme Court level.
He simply made too many mistakes in the presentation of his case, choosing to focus, not on the law, but on the actions of the out of state LEO that arrested him after he allegedly threatened to shoot them during an apparent road-rage situation.
And he was very, very lucky that the State Attorney chose not to prosecute him on an Aggravated Assault with a Firearm charge as well (of which he was clearly guilty.)
Having said all of that, I give someone a 99.44% chance of being arrested (and convicted at the trial court level) should they choose to 'visibly' carry a pistol, "on or about their person", snapped in a holster, in their car. Unless they are participating in any of the activities listed in 790.25(3).
*
* Which is precisely why the decision of the 4th DCA was incorrect.