The ordinance in question said that residents with the proper permit could take a

handgun outside the home to a city shooting range, provided it was unloaded and in a
locked container, but that the gun could not be taken beyond the city limits.

Three residents challenged the provision, saying that they wanted to take their firearms
outside the city to gun ranges, shooting competitions and second homes. They argued
that the law violated their Second Amendment rights and said transporting an unloaded
gun in a locked container did not pose any significant safety risk. Two lower courts
rejected their claims and upheld the law.

After the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, the city repealed the ordinance. The
New York state legislature then passed a law prohibiting local governments in the state
from enacting similar restrictions. The moves were intended to deprive the court of a
vehicle for taking a new look at the reach of the Second Amendment.

New York urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the case, known as New York State Rifle
& Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, explaining there was nothing left for the
challengers to fight.

"Independently and together, the new statute and regulation give petitioners everything
they have sought in this lawsuit," the city's lawyers told the court.

But the challengers, along with gun rights groups, urged the court to hear the case
anyway

New York's changes in the law "reflect the city's unwavering view that the ability to
transport a licensed handgun is a matter of government-conferred privilege, rather than
a constitutional right," wrote Paul Clement, a Washington lawyer representing the gun
owners in a court filing. "The city has never abandoned its view that the right protected
by the Second Amendment is a homebound right."

New York now specifies that anyone taking a gun to a shooting range cannot make any
stops along the way, including to a gas station or coffee shop. And the city forbids taking
a gun to a vacation rental house, Clement said.

In an unusually critical friend-of-court brief, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said if

the court agreed to hear the case, even after New York repealed the law, it would look
like a partisan move.

"The Supreme Court is not well," Whitehouse said in August. "And the people know it.
Perhaps particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to
heal."

Senate Republicans responded to Whitehouse by calling the brief a threat.

"The implication is as plain as day: Dismiss this case, or we'll pack the court," they said.