Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego

ORDER

We must rule on motions to intervene in this Second Amendment case which were filed after our opinion and judgment reversing the District Court were filed.

*572 When Sheriff William D. Gore declined to file a petition for rehearing en banc in this case, the State of California and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. The California Police Chiefs’ Association (CPCA) and the California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA), amici in this case, submitted a petition for rehearing en banc. However, amici cannot file petitions for rehearing en banc. See Day v. Apoliona, 505 F.3d 968 , 964 (9th Cir.2007). We therefore construe CPCA and CPOA’s petition as a motion to intervene. See CPCA & CPOA Pet. for Reh’g En Banc at 2 n.2 (“To the extent the Court finds that CPCA and CPOA must be a party in order to submit this petition, CPCA and CPOA request that this Court construe this petition to also be a request to intervene as parties.”).

II

Intervention, both of right and by permission, can occur only “[o]n timely motion.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)-(b). Timeliness is determined with reference to three factors: “(1) the stage of…

dissenting:

The majority’s decision to prevent the State of California from intervening in this case conflicts with controlling circuit precedent and deprives one of the parties most affected by our decision the opportunity to even present an argument to us on an important constitutional question affecting millions of citizens. I respectfully dissent.

I

This case began with consideration of the narrow but important question of whether the scope of the Second Amendment extended to concealed carry of handguns in public and, if so, whether San Diego County’s “good cause” requirement unconstitutionally infringed on that right. However, on appeal, the case morphed into another challenge entirely, as the majority opinion instead considered the constitutionality of California’s firearm regulatory framework.

That the opinion primarily addressed state regulation of handguns could hardly be clearer. Although the majority stated that the plaintiffs “focus[ ] [their] challenge on the licensing scheme for concealed carry,” it construed the plaintiffs’ complaint as contending that “the San Diego County policy in light of the California licensing scheme as a whole violates the Second…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD PERUTA; MICHELLE No. 10-56971

LAXSON; JAMES DODD; LESLIE

BUNCHER, DR.; MARK CLEARY; D.C. No. CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL 3:09-cv-02371-

ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION, IEG-BGS

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER

Intervenor-Pending,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; WILLIAM D.

GORE, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.

Filed November 12, 2014

Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Sidney R. Thomas, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.

Order; Dissent by Judge Thomas SUMMARY*

Civil Rights

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 State of California and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 after San Diego Sheriff William D. Gore declined to file a petition for rehearing en banc. The California Police…