Just the man here to answer:
Peterson v. LaCabe wiki article
Here ya go. As you can see, Denver is very poorly defending the law's constitutionality, instead relying on procedural misdirection and criticism of my lawyer's briefs, and pointing the finger at the state. My 6/30 response to them makes it clear that they did not defend the law's constitutionality, and asks for a granting of my MSJ and the issuance of the license.
My case would not be fully binding authority on California's situation unless we make it to the US Supreme Court, it would be persuasive authority, just as the denial of the motion to dismiss in the Peruta's case helped us.
Denver, CO was specifically targetted as A) I like going there frequently and B) Self defense is codified in the concealed handgun license statute. Makes it difficult for a local issuing authority to say that a CHL is not for self defense purposes. Thus Denver's desperate procedural falsehoods and whining.
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peterson_v._LaCabe