How have courts considered tethering offences where the underlying crime was possession of a firearm?

As appellant admits, we have previously considered this issue where the underlying crime was possession of a firearm. (People v. Osuna (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1030 (Osuna).) In that context, we rejected the notion that a tethering offense is needed and held that "the literal language of the Act disqualifies an inmate from resentencing if he or she was armed with a firearm during the unlawful possession of that firearm." (Id. at p. 1032.) We see no reason to deviate from that analysis.