Now she wants to get involved… but it might be too late.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to help San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore during the Peruta case, assuming—wrongly—that the Ninth Circuit panel would simply affirm the “right” of California’s anti-gun government to circumscribe the Second Amendment however they see fit.

Shocking everyone, the three-judge panel instead did the deepest historical and legal analysis ever done on a Second Amendment case (that I’m aware of), and came to the conclusion that there was both a right to keep arms, and to bear them. In a 2-1 decision, they ruled that California’s ban on open carry and the “good cause” permitting block to concealed carry were unconstitutional.

While Gore has accepted the appellate court’s decision, Harris and a bevy of frenzied citizen control cultists have now filed suit for an en banc re-hearing to reverse the decision:

In a statement Thursday asking that a larger panel of the appeals court review and reverse the decision, Harris said she would “do everything possible to restore law enforcement’s authority to protect public safety.”

“If the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to take effect, officials throughout the state could be required to issue concealed-carry permits to individuals based on nothing more than the applicant’s assertion that they wish to carry a gun for self-defense,” Harris said.

Harris was joined in crying out for the full court to hear the case by a raft of gun control cultists as noted by No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money:

Today, in what seems to be a coordinated effort, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the Brady Campaign, the Legal Community Against Violence, the California Peace Officers Association, and the California Police Chiefs Association filed petitions requesting an en banc hearing. The State of California represented by Harris and the Brady Campaign also filed motions to intervene in the case.

02/27/2014	121	Filed (ECF) Amici Curiae California Peace Officers Association and California Police Chiefs Association petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/13/2014 opinion). Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996109]–[COURT UPDATE: Attached searchable version of petition. Resent NDA. 02/27/2014 by RY] (PRC)
02/27/2014	122	Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by State of California. Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996638] (GDB)
02/27/2014	123	Submitted (ECF) Intervenor brief for review and filed Motion to intervene. Submitted by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996736] (NRO)
02/27/2014	124	Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae Legal Community Against Violence petition for rehearing en banc (from 02/13/2014 opinion). Date of service: 02/27/2014. [8996737] (SJF)

All of these filing’s may be irrelevant however, if these groups can’t establish that they have legal standing, and that they will be “imminently” harmed by the decision.

The Ninth Circuit has until March 7 to decide on whether they will vote on rehearing the case.