Can a defendant be sentenced to both possession of a firearm and the primary charge of shooting at an inhabited dwelling?

In People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, at pages 1147 to 1148 (Jones), the appellate court considered whether the defendant could be sentenced to both possession of a firearm and the primary offense of shooting at an inhabited dwelling. The court observed that "[i]t strains reason to assume that [the defendant] did not have possession for some period of time before firing shots at the . . . home. Any other interpretation would be patently absurd. [The defendant] committed two separate acts: arming himself with a firearm, and shooting at an inhabited dwelling. [The defendant] necessarily had the firearm in his possession before he shot at [the house], when he and his companion came to the house 15 minutes before the shooting, or, at the very least, when they began driving toward the house the second time. It was therefore a reasonable inference that [the defendant's] possession of the firearm was antecedent to the primary crime." (Id. at p. 1147.) The court recognized that the defendant "must have had either actual or constructive possession of the gun while riding in the car, as evidenced by his control over and use of the gun during the shooting." (Ibid.)