Peruta intervention denied!
Ninth Circuit order here. Peruta essentially held unconstitutional California's combination of "may issue" carry permits and banning all carry, open as well as concealed, absent such a permit. It was brought against the county sheriff. He announced he would not appeal further (to en banc rehearing or for cert.). California, which had not been sued and had not participated, then moved to intervene and take over, as did Brady Campaign (which probably had no standing and was just looking for media coverage). The panel denied both motions by a 2-1 ruling.
California can always move for rehearing en banc as to its motion. But apparently the Circuit wasn't willing to review the case itself en banc (which it can do on its own motionif a majority of judges want to), so odds there are not good. Ah, now I think I remember proceedings were stayed until this motion was ruled upon, so maybe the time period for voluntary en banc only now begins.