Now I may sound like a contrarian here, but if we were to deconstruct that sentence, I believe that statement implies that the firearm has to be accessible in the car that the felon is riding in, not simply that the felon is in the same car as a firearm. It's the "nested or's" and the understood "to have" that makes it clearer if you re-insert the infinitive back in the various clauses.
Example:
to have in his or her possession OR
(to have) under his or her immediate control, OR
(to have) in any vehicle which the person is operating, OR
(to have in any vehicle) in which the person is riding as a passenger, OR
(to have) at the residence where the convicted person resides,
Anyway, I'm not the AG, so my opinion isn't worth beans in court, but I believe that's a reasonable interpretation of the law, otherwise it's possible to come up with perverse legal results such as additional charges for a parolee riding in the back of a police car in which the police are armed, etc etc.
I agree. Access and control are the keys as I'm reading it. Otherwise, a felon could violate this unknowingly 10 times a day.