So the saga continues on this.
TLDR: The attorney general lost her attempt to intervene in the case but now she can appeal that ruling. We're probably looking at another year or more until we know the final outcome.
After the February ruling which overturned California's law that says county sheriff's can require good cause to issue a CCW, the CA Attorney General petitioned the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for an en banc ruling on the case. This means a larger panel of judges (9 instead of 3) would review and re-decide the case. She did this because the San Diego County Sheriff (original defendant) declined to appeal the case or request the en banc review.
Normally, a person or entity who was not one of the original parties in the case can't do that, but the AG asserted that she represents California and that California has an interest in the outcome of the case. Yesterday, the 9th Circuit disagreed with her and decided she doesn't have standing to make such a request.
Interestingly, it was a 3 judge panel that made yesterday's ruling that the AG can't intervene and the AG can now request an en banc review on that procedural ruling.
It seems the 9th Circuit can also still do an en banc review of the original ruling about CCW's on its own, if it wants to.
So essentially, this is going to continue to be tied up in court for a while. It took 9 months to get the ruling on the AG's attempt to intervene. If she appeals that ruling, it could be another 9 months or more just to get back to where we were in Feb when the court made the original ruling, and that's if she loses again. If she wins and the court grants her standing to request the en banc, then we're looking at way more time as the court will be obligated to do the en banc review and who knows how long that will take.
Last edited by [LoD]Vermithrax; 11/13/14 09:14 PM.
