Calif. AG moves to intervene in Peruta
Very strange. San Diego asked her to intervene at the trial court stage, and she did nothing. The trial court ruled, and she did nothing. The appeal was briefed and argued, and she did nothing. Now the appeals court rules against San Diego, the sheriff decides not to appeal and to issue permits on a "may issue" basis, and she moves to intervene in the case. It's a bit late.
Since the time to move for rehearing lapses, I think, today, and a motion must allow time for opposition and reply, I can only make two senses to it. (1) A publicity ploy (most likely) and/or (2) hope to be granted intervenor rights in time to file a petition for cert.. I think (1) is by far the most probable. Get turned down and say "I tried."
UPDATE: Here's the motion. California seeks to intervene in order to ask for en banc review. There might be another reason for the motion. Any judge of the Ninth can call for such review, and has another week in which to do so. This could be meant to alert the judges to the case and motivate them to ask for it. Although I'd assume this ruling was carried in all the mass media in San Francisco, so it's hardly likely the judges are uninformed here.
Quaere: since the Defendants have announced they will issue CCW permits to all law-abiding folks, is there even a "case or controversy" left, or is the case moot?