In 2005, a Utah resident named Gregg Revell was flying home through Newark Liberty International Airport with a checked, unloaded firearm and ammunition, declared to the airline in full compliance with federal transport law. He missed his connecting flight. To rebook, he had to retrieve his checked baggage — including the firearm — and, with no flight available until the next morning, he checked into a hotel for the night. The following morning, after voluntarily declaring the unloaded firearm again, he was arrested and charged with illegal possession under New Jersey law.
The federal protection that was supposed to cover this
Federal law has long included a "safe passage" provision for exactly this kind of situation. Under 18 U.S.C. § 926A, part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, someone who can legally possess a firearm at their point of origin and their destination is protected while transporting it between the two — regardless of the laws of any state they pass through — as long as the firearm is unloaded and not readily accessible from the vehicle's passenger compartment during the trip.
Why the protection didn't hold up in court
Revell sued the arresting officer and the Port Authority, arguing his arrest violated his rights under § 926A. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The court found that once Revell left the airport and spent the night with the firearm accessible to him at a hotel, he was no longer within the narrow window § 926A protects — the statute's "not readily accessible" requirement, the court held, didn't stretch to cover an overnight stay forced by circumstances entirely outside his control. The court acknowledged Revell had done nothing wrong and had been placed in a difficult position through no fault of his own — and upheld the arrest anyway.
Why this case matters again in 2026
Twenty years later, this exact gap is being addressed at the federal level. In May 2026, the ATF published a proposed rule that would formally recognize that routine, unavoidable parts of interstate travel — an overnight stay, a missed connection, stopping for fuel or food — count as protected "transport" under § 926A, rather than something that strips a traveler of federal protection the moment they step away from their vehicle. The proposed rule cites Revell's case directly as the reason the clarification is needed. Public comment on the rule closed on August 4, 2026, and it has not yet been finalized as of this writing.
What this means for you right now
Until any final rule actually takes effect, the underlying risk Revell faced is still the law in the states covered by his case. A firearm that's perfectly legal at home, transported in full compliance with federal law, can still result in an arrest if travel circumstances beyond your control — a missed flight, a mechanical breakdown, a medical delay — put you in a position courts have read the statute not to cover. This is precisely the state-by-state patchwork we've written about before: what's legal in one place doesn't travel with you automatically, and the gap between the law as written and the law as enforced can be exactly where a good-faith traveler ends up facing real charges.