Calif. AG moves to intervene in Peruta

It looks to be a publicity ploy but more importantly, an attempt to influence whichever one of the 27 9th Circuit judges who might be inclined to take it en banc. In that sense it will have some influence.

The real question is, will the US Supremes take up Drake out of NJ and leave the Peruta wranging moot?

Yes, I am curious to see what the Court does with this. The State of California appears to want to have its cake and eat it too.

If I recall the oral argument correctly, the plaintiffs argued that the State of California was effectively a party already because California law says that you challenge a statute by suing the Sheriff. The Sheriff's attorney disagreed saying that this case was just about the narrow question of the Sheriff's exercise of discretion to determine "just cause" in issuing CCW permits (and there is no right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment so ... case over). The strategy was successful to the extent that it forced the Plaintiffs (and the panel majority) to concede that this case was only about the Sheriff's interpretation and application of the statutory "just cause" requirement and did not challenge the constitutionality of any California statute. It's also part of a larger-and generally successful-strategy to make it as difficult as possible for would-be plaintiffs to establish standing to challenge gun laws unless they are willing to first break the law and risk conviction on serious, usually felony, gun charges (the approach advocated in Judge Thomas' dissent). The approach, fortunately, was not persuasive to the majority, which properly insisted on analyzing the Sheriff's exercise of discretion against the backdrop of the California's entire statutory scheme regulating the carrying of guns in public.

In the motion to intervene, the Attorney General acknowledges that, indeed, she does have supervisory authority over all of the California Sheriffs; nevertheless, the State of California must now be allowed to intervene because the panel decision (she says) calls into question California's entire statutory scheme regulating guns in public. (It does, of course, but only indirectly and to the extent that the laws in any of the other states and territories in the Ninth Circuit will be affected by a precedential ruling that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns for self defense in public places).

So, if she has supervisor authority, why does the AG not just order the Sheriff to move for rehearing or substitute into the case in his place? I suggest the answer is obvious: She wants to control this litigation, but does not want to give up the ability to deny standing to other would-be plaintiffs (and plaintiff's in other pending cases) who would challenge California's multitude of burdensome firearm laws in bulk.

Also strange are the several motions for rehearing filed by the various amici. They are not parties. Do they even have standing to move for rehearing?

The defendants have not stated that they will issue to all law-abiding people. Defendants stated that once the case is final, they will begin issuing. Based on the context of the press release, it was clear to me that this meant (at the very least) once the Ninth Circuit had declined to rehear the case en banc.

Richards and Baker (HI) were heard at the same time by the same panel.

Did the panel issue only Peruta so, if it was unopposed, it would moot the others and/or to give any opponents on the Circuit to call for an en banc hearing without having to object to all three?

If Peruta does go en banc and loses, what happens to Richards and Baker?

I wonder how AG Harris' arguments to intervene square with her arguments in Perry...

This is how political creatures who aren't supposed to discuss specific cases with their peers in a different branch make their opinions known to each other. "Well," says the well-intentioned lib judge, "if the Attorney General thinks we should hear this case en banc, that's good enough for me." Expecto patronum! The case is suddenly heard with the rationale that there was enough interest "from the public" that it seemed better to err on the side of caution.

Not being an attorney some of this dialog is somewhat confusing to me.From what I do understand it seems that our AJ is having a slight tantrum about a decision she does not agree with or like.

Meanwhile every add'l new applicant in Ventura, Orange, and San Diego counties is a motivated voter those sheriff's will have to consider before they start declining, even if the case is overturned en banc.

If the application numbers get high enough their political calculation will be very different than Harris's regardless of outcome and put the LA county sheriff in a bit of a "keeping up with the Jonses" bind politically.