After losing at the Ninth Circuit in February, the Sheriff elected to abide by the Court’s decision and issue concealed carry permits rather than appealing the case further. That should have been the end of it.
Unfortunately, California Attorney General Kamala Harris (and a few others, but none with claims worthy of discussion), who opposes Second Amendment civil rights, then sought to intervene in the case — a request that the panel of Ninth Circuit judges who decided Peruta denied in November.
But, even that wouldn’t be the end of the Peruta litigation. In an extraordinary turn of events, the Court issued two subsequent orders in early December: One asking for briefing on the Peruta panel’s denial of Harris’ request to intervene and her request for en banc (full court) rehearing on that procedural issue, and another on the Court’s sua sponte (on its own motion) call for a vote for an en banc review of the panel’s decision on the merits.
Our brief effectively addresses both of those issues, concluding that “the Court should not rehear this case en banc.”
The key issue is that the State of California, represented by Attorney General Harris, has long taken the position that it has no standing in such cases. This is similar to the position taken by New York State in our own Federal lawsuit against New York City and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr.
In our case, the State was excused from the case based on its arguments that are similar to the position long held by California. In both cases, having established a position that they have no standing, it is irrational and goes against long-established legal precedent to come back when the case goes against their politically-driven positions to try to insert themselves into the case after it has been already finalized between the actual parties to the case.