Law Shield would like to brief our members on the status of Peruta v. San Diego, a lawsuit challenging the discretionary “may issue” handgun carry permit policies of San Diego Sheriff William Gore.
On Christmas Eve, attorneys for a coalition of 22 pro-Second Amendment organizations and individual plaintiffs filed an amicus curiae brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter. Amicus curiae briefs are legal opinions, testimony, or other learned treatises written by those who are not a party to the case.
After losing at the Ninth Circuit in February, Sheriff Gore decided to abide by the Court’s decision rather than appealing the case further.
Unfortunately, California Attorney General Kamala Harris and a few others then filed a motion to intervene in the case — a request that the panel of Ninth Circuit judges, who decided Peruta, denied in November. Part of the judges’ legal reasoning to deny a rehearing was simple and easy to understand: the State of California, represented by Attorney General Harris, has no standing in the case.
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. The call for a vote has not, as of yet, resulted in any further actions by the court.
Law Shield agrees with the panel’s decision that the Court should not rehear this case en banc. It goes against legal precedent for a state official — AG Harris — to try to insert the state into the case after it has been already finalized between the actual parties when the case goes against her politically-driven positions.
Click here to read the amicus brief.