This case was decided by a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit. We won 2 to 1.
Usually, before appealing to SCOTUS, the loser will ask for an en banc review of the decision (and SCOTUS expects them to do that). In the 9th, an en banc panel of judges will have 11 judges + the Chief Justice. In theory, it could have every active judge in the 9th Circuit (something like 20 or 30 so judges), but I don't think that has ever been done before.
If the 9th decides to allow en banc review, the loser there can ask for cert. from SCOTUS (i.e., ask SCOTUS to take the case).
If the 9th decides NOT to allow en banc, San Diego has 90 days from then to ask for cert. from SCOTUS.
Rumors are some county sheriffs, ones that aren't ultra left wing, may liberalize issuance within the next few weeks. If SD does not request en banc, or request it, but gets denied, other sheriffs may liberalize issuance even if SD asks for cert.
Bottom line: this is good news, great opinion, but the fight isn't won yet. Despite that, some sheriffs in CA may go "virtual" Shall Issue by accepting mere "self-defense" for Good Cause.
Right now, out of 58 sheriffs, about 35 readily issue CCWs. The ones that don't are along the coast from Marin down to the border. That's where all the population is and that's where all the crime is. Things may change in the next month or two: 2 weeks for the en banc filing deadline and then a few more weeks for the 9th to decide whether to take it and for sheriffs to decide to change policies (or not). I'm hoping that we go from 35 counties readily issuing CCWs to 45+ Getting the probable last holdouts (SF, Alameda, CoCoCo, Santa Clara, LA, Orange, SD), will require this and/or other cases (Drake or the NRA's TX cases), to get a win at SCOTUS.