I watched the video of the oral argument, and based on the judges questions and reactions, I agree that Diggins should easily win this one.
The best question by a judge was one of the first asked. The state's attorney was asked, "If there is an ambiguity in the statute, shouldn't the ambiguity be decided in favor of the criminal defendant?"
If I was writing this opinion, I would say the statute is not ambiguous and the center console qualifies as a case or other container. But, even if we accept the state's argument that the statute is ambiguous, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the defendant. Due process is not observed where a defendant is held criminally liable for a statute whose ambiguous meaning must be ascertained by reading the legislative history or unrelated wildlife code. If the legislature meant for a "case" to mean a "case specifically designed to hold a firearm" it could have included that language in the statute like it did in the wildlife code. But it didn't, and we are not going to find the defendant guilty of a crime for violating nonexistent language in a statute.