Category: RKBA

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

March 19, 2025 

Washington, D.C. – The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an Interim Final Rule removing the Attorney General’s delegation of authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to process applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). This action follows more than three decades of Congressional funding restrictions that have rendered ATF unable to process individual applications. 

The rule removes outdated regulations and is part of a broader review of firearm-related policies under Executive Order 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights). Upon the interim final rule’s expected publication tomorrow, the DOJ will begin allowing individuals who are not “dangerous to public safety” to use the statute and petition to have their gun rights restored. 

Key Points of the Rule Change: 

  • Since 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from using funds to process gun rights restoration applications, making the statute obsolete. 
  • ATF will no longer handle individual firearm disability relief applications under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). DOJ will instead carry out the statute and process petitions for gun rights restoration. 
  • The DOJ rule goes into effect immediately upon publication and will simultaneously accept public comments on the rule before issuing a final version. 

Gun Owners of America remains committed to monitoring this process and ensuring that any future policies respect the constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens. 

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: 

“For decades, law-abiding Americans who have had their gun rights unfairly restricted have been left in legal limbo—creating an unconstitutional de facto lifetime gun ban. This bureaucratic failure has denied thousands of individuals their lawful opportunity to restore their rights. The DOJ’s decision to finally withdraw ATF’s authority in this matter is an encouraging sign that this administration is serious about protecting the Second Amendment for all Americans.” 

Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: 

“Since its enactment in 1992, Gun Owners of America has fought against the ‘Schumer Amendment’ which defunded the federal gun rights restoration statute. GOA and thousands of would-be gun owners are grateful to President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for once again allowing gun owners to petition to have their gun rights restored by the Department of Justice. We hope to see many more infringements repealed as the federal government carries out President Trump’s executive order Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” 

A great Second Amendment victory in the 9th CCA, for now.
21-16756 Todd Yukutake, et al v. Anne E. Lopez, et al

On Friday, March 14, 2025, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Hawaii laws violate the Second Amendment. Invalidating the two laws, in and of themselves, although a victory, was not a great victory.

The most important thing is how the laws were invalidated.

Charles Nichols’ Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Unless the three-judge panel decision is vacated and the decision subsequently overruled by an en banc panel of the 9th CCA (or the US Supreme Court), the three-judge panel decision will be binding on all subsequent three-judge panels deciding Second Amendment cases.

The two laws invalidated were 1) a permit to purchase a handgun that expired 30 days after it was issued and 2) a requirement that newly purchased firearms be brought to a police station to verify that the paperwork to purchase the firearm matched the firearm.

Two of the three judges on the panel facially invalidated the two laws.

Why is this of great importance? Because in 2022, the United States Supreme Court held in US v. Rahimi that a Second Amendment facial challenge fails if there are any constitutional applications of the law (seemingly, a single application is all it takes for a facial challenge to fail).

Continue reading “”

SAF FILES RESPONSE BRIEF WITH SCOTUS IN MINNESOTA CARRY CASE

BELLEVUE, Wash. — March 10, 2025 — Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a case challenging the State of Minnesota’s prohibition on licensed concealed carry by young adults ages 18-20 have filed a response brief with the U.S. Supreme Court encouraging the justices to “grant plenary review and set the case for argument.”

The case is known as Jacobson v. Worth, originally filed in June 2021 as Worth v. Harrington. SAF is joined by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition, and three private citizens, Kristin Worth, for whom the case is named, Austin Dye, and Axel Anderson. While all three have turned 21, the Eighth Circuit Court granted a motion to supplement the record and allow another individual, Joe Knudsen, to carry the complaint. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

SAF won this case at trial and at the appeals court level. Minnesota is appealing the ruling.

“Today’s filing is unique in that we are agreeing with Minnesota’s request in asking the Supreme Court to hear our case to resolve a dispute between the circuits,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The lower courts are not unanimous in their approach to the Second Amendment rights of 18-20-year-olds. It is important that the Court weigh in to confirm that 18-20-year-olds are part of ‘the People’ and the Second Amendment applies in full to those individuals. The ban Minnesota seeks to uphold eviscerates the right of those adults to be able to carry a firearm for self-defense. This is patently unconstitutional and while we prevailed at the court of appeals, the Supreme Court needs to ensure all the lower courts reach the proper result. By taking this case, they can do just that.”

“A clear majority of federal courts have already protected the Second Amendment rights of young adults,” added SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we note in our brief, we are not aware of any evidence of colonial or Founding-era laws restricting 18-to-20-year-olds from their right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, history is full of evidence that people in this age group were not prevented from keeping or carrying their own arms.”

What do they want, sponge balls for bullets? These purported scientists are morons with crap-for-brains to think they can sell this.

Gun Control Researchers Should Realize: It’s the Criminal, Not the Bullet’s ‘Case Fatality Rate’

Instead of advocating for prosecutors to get tough on criminals who break the law, keeping them behind bars longer rather than being released with a slap on the wrist, researchers have been keeping themselves busy in a flurry of “research” to tell us what we already know. Firearms are deadly. That is, after all, why law-abiding citizens use firearms for self-defense.

That is why gun rights advocates, Second Amendment supporters and self-defense proponents take firearm education and training so seriously. With great privilege (exercising Second Amendment rights) comes great responsibility.

Several researchers teamed up to publish a recent article in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) titled, “Bullets as Pathogen—The Need for Public Health and Policy Approaches.” The results were not at all earth-shattering – that larger bullets cause more damage than smaller ones – but policy recommendations resulting from the “research” could be far-reaching, if impractical.

“It is past time to address the ultimate cause of injury and death, the bullet, and consider bullet-specific regulations to decrease the burden of firearm injuries in the U.S.,” the authors proclaimed.

Bullets Aren’t Bacteria

Gun control activists in university research departments are increasingly partnering with health care professionals in order to push an agenda of strict gun control as if they’re trying to solve a public health emergency. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health immediately comes to mind. That institution, funded by staunch gun control activist and hypocrite Micheal Bloomberg – who also bankrolls Everytown for Gun Safety and its propaganda “news” outlet The Trace – just released a report including five policy recommendations and promoted the idea that gun ownership would be better treated as a privilege and not as a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for all law-abiding citizens.

The researchers behind the new JAMA article are pushing more of the same.

“Through examination of the devastating damage of bullets to individuals and society and application of public health principles akin to communicable diseases, we can prevent further injuries, disability and unnecessary loss of life,” the authors wrote.

Continue reading “”

Court upholds Florida gun law that bars people under 21 from buying rifles
Friday’s ruling by the full Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a three-judge panel’s decision and outlined the history of the nation’s gun laws, from its founding to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting guidelines for determining how to apply the Second Amendment.

Saying the restriction is “consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation,” a federal appeals court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Florida law that raised the minimum age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 18 to 21. [really? What ‘historical tradition?]

The 8-4 ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came after seven years of legal wrangling in the National Rifle Association’s challenge to a 2018 law passed after a mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 students and faculty members.

Nikolas Cruz, who was 19 at the time, used a semiautomatic rifle to gun down the victims at his former school. The NRA filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the gun-age restriction shortly after the law passed.

Friday’s ruling by the full Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a three-judge panel’s decision and outlined the history of the nation’s gun laws, from its founding to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting guidelines for determining how to apply the Second Amendment. While the law barred people under 21 from buying rifles and long guns, they still can receive them, for example, as gifts from family members.

“From this history emerges a straightforward conclusion: the Florida law is consistent with our regulatory tradition in why and how it burdens the right of minors to keep and bear arms,” Chief Judge William Pryor wrote. “Because minors have yet to reach the age of reason, the Florida law prohibits them from purchasing firearms, yet it allows them to receive firearms from their parents or another responsible adult.”

Judges Adalberto Jordan, Robin Rosenbaum, Jill Pryor, Kevin Newsom, Britt Grant, Nancy Abudu and Charles Wilson joined the majority opinion. Judge Andrew Brasher wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Judges Elizabeth Branch, Barbara Lagoa and Robert Luck.

Should firearms background check system be abolished?

To some people, firearm background checks are accepted and considered a way to prevent bad guys from getting guns. They’re completely wrong, and here’s why.

The background check system, otherwise known as the “government hijacking of a God-given right and selling it back to you as a government-issued privilege,” is unconstitutional and dangerous to law-abiding citizens.

As we inch our way toward state-to-state reciprocity with constitutional carry in our major cities, we recognize that many states not only require a government-issued permission slip to carry a gun but also make it almost impossible to obtain that permit. Even if you can make it through the rat maze of training, fees, background checks, storage requirements, magazine capacity limitations, and a list of other constitution-violating requirements, most of society is off limits to you and your firearm because many state gun laws have deemed public and even private places, gun free zones.

The idea of undergoing and passing background checks as a prerequisite to exercising the 2nd Amendment should have never been a thought even in the darkest corners of the most communist minds of the most radical left-wing ideologues, not only because it violates the rights of American citizens, but also because it puts undeserving Americans in legal jeopardy and in physical danger.

According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2017, the NICS background check system denied 112,090 people the right to purchase a firearm. Of those 112,090 denials, only 12,710 were investigated. We have to ask ourselves: If over 112,000 people were denied but only 12,710 Investigations took place, wouldn’t that be clear evidence that the system is failing and falsely denying good people their right to keep and bear?

It gets worse. That same year, and from that group of 112,090 denials, there were only 12 prosecutions for the crime of attempting to purchase a firearm. Now the anti-gun crowd says, “See, we stopped 12 mass shootings!” Well, there are problems with that argument.

First of all, do we have no regard for the 112,078 people who were caught up in the poorly run background check system? What happens to those people? Well, the anti-gun crowd couldn’t care less about the people who are falsely denied their 2nd Amendment rights. As well as being falsely labeled a criminal and refused the ability to purchase a gun, good folks who are denied must also jump through hoops, make appeals, and wait.

Then, they have to wait some more because we know how efficient government agencies operate. By some estimates, approximately 80% of the NICS denials are never even appealed, often because the person denied is unable to navigate the appeals process or is unable to afford a lawyer to help them. In the meantime, good people are rendered unarmed and helpless by an unconstitutional process that should never have existed in the first place.

What about the 12 prosecutions in 2017? Were they mass murderers? And if they were, why weren’t they in jail? The background check system is created under the guise of stopping violent criminals from purchasing firearms, but if a person has done something so heinous that they lose their rights, wouldn’t that crime be enough to keep them in jail? And if not, why not? Why are they able to walk among us? It would seem the problem has less to do with guns and more to do with a criminal justice system that works to keep a violent element on our streets. The background check system, however, has been much more effective at preventing law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms than criminals, and we can see that by simply looking at the numbers.

Now, you might remember the anti-gun crowd cheering in the media that the number of firearm purchase denials reached the highest number yet in the year 2021. That year, there were approximately 300,000 background check denials. This was great news to the gun grabbers because all they really care about is disarming their political opposition, but did the percentage of false denials change?

With a huge increase in firearm purchases after the left-wing riots of 2020, the FBI claims that its denial rate is 99.8% accurate. Mysteriously, the Government Accountability Office has still not posted their findings for 2022, but you’re supposed to believe that the FBI went from a .01% success rate to a 99.8% success rate, and you are now safe from false denials. John Lott from the Crime Prevention Research Center has claimed that the exact opposite is true, and approximately 99% of firearm purchase denials are false positives, meaning good people are being denied their rights for no reason.

After watching the NICS system deny thousands of good people over the years, you’re supposed to believe that now, magically, the firearm background check system is functioning as it should. Well, we’re not buying it for a minute. We know the system is falsely denying good people their right to own firearms, and the system needs to be abolished.

Our Founding Fathers didn’t say, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed… as long as you go through a background check system designed by people who don’t want you to have a gun.”

 

BLUF
Heroic citizens stopping bad guys would be just as interesting to watch as police stopping crimes, but permit holders are rarely portrayed that way on television. This reluctance to show normal good guys with guns endangers public safety by fostering a false perception that armed civilians are more of a threat than a solution.

If we truly care about public safety, we should acknowledge the proven role that responsible gun owners play in stopping violent attacks — rather than avoiding the truth for the sake of an anti-gun agenda.

Study: Concealed Carriers Do A Better Job Of Stopping Active Shooters Than Police

You’d never know it from watching television, but civilians stop more active shooters than police and do so with fewer mistakes, according to new research from the Crime Prevention Research Center, where I serve as president. In non-gun-free zones, where civilians are legally able to carry guns, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police, CPRC found in a deep dive into active shooter scenarios between 2014 and 2023.

Not only do permit holders succeed in stopping active shooters at a higher rate, but law enforcement officers face significantly greater risks when intervening. Our research found police were nearly six times more likely to be killed and 17 percent more likely to be wounded than armed civilians.

Those numbers paint a fuller picture than the FBI’s crime statistics, which fail to include many of the defensive gun uses my organization has cataloged. But the problem with the FBI’s crime statistics isn’t just the errors in their reported data — they also fail to address useful questions, like how concealed handgun permit holders compare to law enforcement. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino face a major challenge in reforming how the data is collected and reported at the FBI.

What We Found

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS is going to have to do something about this and slap these silly lower courts down, or things aren’t going to be pretty

Seventh Circuit Panel: SBRs Aren’t ‘Arms’ Protected by the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. That should mean any weapon used for offensive or defensive acts. The reason was very clear. It was intended for us to be able to maintain a militia that could defend this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

But the Seventh Circuit has decided that short-barreled rifles, or SBRs, aren’t arms covered by the amendment.

(I had to use a screenshot that I linked since X is having issues with the embed codes)

Now, this is a problem for a lot of reasons.

First, let’s talk a bit about the Miller decision. Yes, it’s a Supreme Court decision that lower courts have had to contend with for ages now. However, Miller dealt with a sawed-off shotgun. The Court in that decision said that such a weapon had no militia use, thus it wasn’t covered by the Second Amendment. That was wrong, of course, because that ruling was issued in 1934, so after shotguns had been used so effectively in World War I that the Germans tried to get using them considered a war crime.

Further, Miller himself was dead, so there wasn’t really another side arguing one way or the other in that case.

Still, when you look at Bruen, it doesn’t say anything about how you can just decide something isn’t an arm simply because you don’t think it’s useful for warfare.

Of course, then there’s the fact that if SBRs aren’t useful for warfare as a tool of the militia, then why is the standard issue weapon for the United States Army technically an SBR? The M4 has a barrel length of 14.5 inches, which is an inch and a half shorter than what is necessary for a rifle to not be considered an SBR. If SBRs aren’t useful for militia use, then why is it issued to every one of our combat troops and was used in pretty much every firefight out troops saw in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Now, let’s talk about the “step two in our Bruen” thing that’s cut off.

We turn to step two in our Bruen analysis in the interest of completeness. As discussed below, even if short-barreled rifles were “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, historical tradition likely supports regulating them.

The court goes on to argue that Rahimi permits similar but more modern laws can be considered.

Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 692. When the historical laws “address[ed] particular problems” there is a good chance “contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons” are also permissible. Id. The laws do not need to “precisely match”—the contemporary one must only “comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment….” Id.

Now, I’m not an attorney, but this sure looks like the Rahimi decision seems to suggest that contemporary laws can be applied when the historical laws addressed either that problem or similar ones. In other words, if the Founding Fathers were trying to address drunk people carrying guns, as they did, a more contemporary law seeking to address a similar problem would apply.

Instead, the Seventh Circuit judges just decided to accept contemporary laws as good enough simply because they don’t like the idea of SBRs.

That’s not even getting into the possibility that these judges’ nominations might not even be valid since everything Biden signed looks to have been the result of an autopen and we can’t be sure Biden even knew what was happening in the first place.

Senators Send Letter Urging Repeal of Biden-era Rule Damaging the Firearms Industry

On March 5th U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and U.S. Representative Mark Green (R-TN-07) sent a letter to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging him to rescind an interim final rule (IFR) that the Biden Administration promulgated in an effort to hamstring the domestic firearms industry.

In October 2023, President Biden ordered a 90 day “pause” on firearm exports licenses issued by the Department of Commerce.

This order was in lock-step with other actions taken by the Biden Administration to hinder the U.S. domestic firearms industry in any way possible. And unsurprisingly, at the end of this “pause” the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued an IFR in April 2024. This IFR placed much tighter restrictions on semi-automatic firearms exports, listed dozens of countries as “high risk” countries which would be subject to a “presumption of denial” for export permits, removed a “presumption of approval” for licenses to many countries that had helped to expedite the process previously, and a number of other restrictions. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, an organization that represents firearms manufacturers, stated that this decision would cost the industry nearly $500 million annually.

Continue reading “”

U.S. House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on ‘The Right to Self Defense’

The U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, under the leadership of Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), held a committee hearing focused on the right of law-abiding Americans to protect themselves.

It’s a critical moment for Second Amendment rights as President Donald Trump campaigned on restoring community safety and vowing to protect the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. That priority resonated with voters, including more than 26.2 million law-abiding Americans persuaded by crime and threats of violence in their communities to purchase a firearm for the first time over the past five years.

This priority also aligns with the House Republicans as they are committed to standing up for those Second Amendment rights and ensuring American communities are safe from criminal violence after historic surges in crime during the Biden-Harris administration.

Continue reading “”

Trump Skips Guns in First Congressional Speech of Second Term

President Donald Trump did not mention gun policy once in what turned out to be the longest address to a joint session of Congress in history.

On Tuesday, Trump gave an hour-and-45-minute speech to the House and Senate. While he covered a myriad of topics during the marathon session, he did not make even a passing mention of gun policy.

That continues a trend of Trump downplaying guns in favor of other issues during his campaign and the early months of his second term.

The lack of attention to firearms during his congressional address, despite its length, mirrors Trump’s hour-and-a-half-long RNC keynote speech, where he also ducked the issue. It also follows him skipping out on gun executive orders during his day-one push to jumpstart his agenda. The White House then left gun rights off its literal priority list.

Trump had promised to enact a series of pro-gun reforms during his first week in office but failed to deliver on that timeline.

“Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated my very first week back in office,” Trump said during a speech to NRA members last February.

However, Trump does have a concrete move he could have highlighted in the speech. He followed up those early moves by ordering a review of the executive branch’s approach to gun policy, especially federal rules established during the Biden Administration. So, he may still fulfill his promise to NRA members in the long run.

“The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty,” the executive order said. “It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation. Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.”

While the order only tells Attorney General Pam Bondi to review policies, it lays out most priority areas the gun-rights movement has focused on for years. It has the potential to uproot most of the restrictions the Biden Administration imposed through executive actions and transform the federal government’s legal position in gun cases.

Bondi, who has faced criticism from gun-rights advocates over her history of backing some gun restrictions, will have some say over which policies to change. How big the administration decides to go on reforming those policies could determine whether gun-rights advocates remain on board with Trump’s presidency.

Thomas Jefferson had some things to say about goobermint gone tyrant:

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

and last, but not in anyway least:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

Rep. Jamie Rankin Beclowned Himself in Opening Remarks at Gun Hearing

Rep. Jamie Rankin isn’t going to be on the Christmas card list of any gun rights group you care to name. He’s a vehement anti-gunner and that’s where his bread is buttered. That’s not going to change.

Which is fine, I suppose. He’s in the minority right now, so all he can do is bloviate and then sit there and be impotent in his gun rights animosity.

But bloviate he shall, and he did.

In opening remarks in a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, Rankin decided to display his burning stupid for the entire world to see, then sent out a press release with his remarks.

Awfully swell of him, really.

The problem is that my Republican colleagues have completely deformed the Second Amendment. They say it gives you the right to overthrow the government. Our former colleague, Matt Gaetz often claimed that the Second Amendment “is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary.”

This purported right to overthrow the government means that the people must enjoy access to munitions equivalent to that of the government’s arsenal. As our colleague, Representative Chip Roy, argues, the Second Amendment was “designed purposefully to empower the people to resist the force of tyranny used against them.” And my friend Representative Lauren Boebert says that the Second Amendment has “nothing to do with hunting, unless you’re talking about hunting tyrants, maybe.”

Despite all of this pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric about how the Constitution provides a right of civil insurrection, the actual Constitution, in a half-dozen different places, treats “insurrection” and “rebellion” not as protected rights but as serious and dangerous offenses against our government and our people.

And yet, our Founding Fathers also made it very clear that when the government became tyrannical, it was the duty of the people to throw off the chains of oppression and fight back, not just with words but with weapons.

I mean, they’d just engaged in their own rebellion, their own insurrection, and thrown off those precise chains. They knew that no government could be created that couldn’t, in time, come to oppress the people. They wanted to prevent that, which includes the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

No movement on the ‘Assault Weapon’ (Snopes) or ‘Large Capacity’ Magazine (Ocean State) cases as of March 3rd Morning Orders.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030325zor_apl1.pdf

Well what does this mean? We get to wait more.

It more than likely means that SCOTUS will not take the case this term. That’s not a hard and fast rule, but the longer the wait, the more likely it becomes.

This will be the fourth relisting whenever it next goes to conference. Generally speaking the more relists after two, the less likely they take it. HOWEVER, NYSRPA v. Bruen was relisted four times. Dobbs v. Jackson, the abortion case that did away with Roe v. Wade, was relisted TWELVE times.

That we did not get a denial is good. This order was full of denials. That we did not get granted cert is bad. Nothing has happened.

Thomas (and others) have had plenty of time to write a denial. If they were going to deny it, my view is they would have by now. But we simply do not know.