Oral arguments in three 9th Circuit cases
I haven't listened to the third one yet, but the first two are challenges to California sheriffs refusing to issue permits to carry (now required for all handgun carry), under California's "may issue" regime.
Peruta v. San Diego, backed by NRA and California Rifle and Pistol. Paul Clement argues. Audio here
Richards v. Prieto, backed by SAF and Calguns. Alan Gura argues. Audio here.
Baker v. Kealoha, backed by the Hawaii Defense Foundation. Audio here.
The panel sounded skeptical at the sheriffs' cases, which suggests a favorable outcome.
The sheriffs had a novel defense: the infringement of the right to arms is a product of the State legislation. The sheriffs merely have the power to lift that, so their only role is either to let the State infringement continue, or to provide relief from it. Therefore, they should not be liable.
I don't think that's a good argument. Suppose California enacted a law forbidding political speech unless authorized by a sheriff. One sheriff says "OK, in my county everyone may speak freely." He shouldn't be a defendant. Another sheriff says "in my county, only my friends may speak on politics." I think he's a valid defendant.