Reasonably Direct … stops
There is no case law of which I'm aware. That doesn't mean there isn't a judge describing it, just that I've never written it down.
To me, reasonably direct means that :
- the route itself is not significantly longer in time or distance than the shortest route, including traffic issues (if the highway is rush hour, driving further down back roads is now the reasonably direct route).
- anything necessary to the drive is ok. If you're running out of gas, you can fill up. If you need to pee, you can pull over someplace to use the rest room
- all drive through's are fine. You never get out of the car, and might not even turn the engine off, and if you could you'd be rolling just like at a traffic light. (thermos of coffee for the duck blind, hot hamburgers for everyone before the afternoon's hunting/hiking begins)
- for long trips, stopping at a motel to sleep for the night, is still transport and the most reasonably direct route.
- stopping at Canadian tire to fix a flat, or deal with a dashboard indicator (low radiator coolant, low tire pressure) is ok. Otherwise the car would fail which would cause a situation.


Going a different direction (to work) is a no no.

Anything that in a judge's mind, or a reasonable jury of your countrymen, that would change it from 'transported' to some other state, is out. For example the lady who drove home but didn't take the firearm out of the car fast enough for the judge's liking (a couple hours I think), although she felt the firearm was still in transport, he decided it was being unsafely stored. Going food shopping for an hour always seemed to me to fall into that category.