In the 9th Circuit Court motion by the State of California to appeal the Peruta v. San Diego ruling:
The panel denied motions to intervene, which were filed after the panel’s opinion and judgment holding that a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The panel held that the movants did not meet the heavy
burden of demonstrating imperative reasons in favor of intervention on appeal. Noting that the movants sought intervention more than four years after the case began, the panel stated that the stage of the proceedings, the length of the delay, and the reason for the delay all weighed against
timeliness. In the absence of a timely motion, intervention was unavailable.
The panel further concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 did not provide a basis for intervention because the panel’s opinion never drew into question the Constitutionality of any California statute, but only questioned San Diego County’s exercise of regulatory authority under the relevant state statutes, specifically the County’s policy that an assertion of self-defense is insufficient to demonstrate “good cause” under the California statutory scheme.
From Reason: The upshot is that with both San Diego and the state government now out of the picture, there is no longer any party left with potential standing to challenge the 9th Circuit’s decision. Peruta’s holding that “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense” is now the law of the land in both California and the rest of the territory covered by the 9th Circuit.