by On May 1st, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Sheriff William Gore to respond within 14 days to two questions. First, did the sheriff have a position on whether California AG Kamala Harris should be allowed to intervene in the case? Second, did he consider this case moot as he had starting issuing carry permits on a shall-issue basis?
Gore responded on Wednesday, May 14th in a letter signed by the Senior Deputy County Counsel James Chapin that was sent to the Clerk of Court. The letter said:
The Court has requested the position of Appellee William Gore on the
pending motions to intervene and a response to the suggestion that this case is
moot. Appellee responds as follows:Motions to Intervene.
Appellee believes that the Attorney General is the appropriate intervenor in
this case because the panel opinion finds California’s legislative scheme regarding
the carrying of handguns unconstitutional. Appellee requests that the Court grant
the Attorney General’s Motion to Intervene. Appellee takes no position on other
intervenors.Mootness.
This case is not moot. Appellee has not changed his policy or procedures for
the issuance of concealed carry licenses. All current applications that do not meet
the existing policy are being held without action, pending final direction from the
Court or the Legislature.
Intervenor status was also sought by the Brady Campaign. An en banc review of the Peruta decision is being sought by Harris, the Brady Campaign, the California Peace Officers Association, and the California Police Chiefs Association.
As attorney Chuck Michel made clear back in March, both Gore and the plaintiffs had asked Harris to participate in the case she declined. It was only after Peruta was decided in favor of the plaintiffs did she try to intervene. I guess she never thought the 9th Circuit would decide in favor of the plaintiffs and in such a forceful decision.