https://reason.com/2019/12/02/new-york-city-which-defended-its-onerous-gun-transport-restrictions-as-necessary-for-public-safety-concedes-they-werent/
The appeal is definitely not moot because NYC stupidly replaced the old law with a new one which retains some of the language of the original about having to travel from a NYC residence directly to a gun range. It just doesn't have to be a NYC gun range anymore. And the NYC lawyer arguing before the Supremes admitted there was no evidence supporting NYC's claim that the new law somehow promotes public safety.
I.e., the new law has some restrictions on the travel of gun owners without any evidence in favor of the restrictions. Heller is clear that bearing a gun is a Constitutional right. Any government burden on exercise of a Constitutional right must be supported by evidence. This law isn't so it is unconstitutional.
A narrow ruling would focus on the absence of evidence by the City. That alone would invalidate most existing gun restrictions, though it wouldn't be difficult for gun banners to fabricate purported evience supporting new laws with the same old restrictions.
What seems to be happening here is a shift by the Supremes away from the old "rational relationship" test for normal legislation to the "give it your best shot or else", aka "substantial evidence", test for legislation burdening a Constitutional right.
That seems to be the underlying issue here - whether the Supremes will require real evidence justifying ANY restriction on firearms rights. Chief Justice Roberts doesn't have much wiggle room here. Any ruling less than that will dramatically harm the Court's "political legitimacy". See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#
Which in turn might, in these troubled times, take down the federal government's legitmacy as a means of resolving political issues. The biggest examples of those in American history are the Dred Scott Decision and how that resulted in the Civil War.
It helps that Roberts knows that Trump will be re-elected such that, whether Justice Ginsberg croaks next year or not, she will almost certainly be replaced by a Republican appointee who will vote to require gun burdens be supported by substantial evidence. So all he can do in this case is postpone the inevitable. That might get him to act now.
Good analysis of the arguments. Thanks.
I really wish Thomas had broken his normal silence at oral arguments for this case. Though this case is very narrowly defined, (something I understand, though I disagree with the tactic), the decision should be an interesting read when it finally comes out. It is pretty obvious that the liberals on the court were pushing the ‘mootness’ argument very hard. The case is essentially a slam dunk without mootness, and they are really not wanting the likely ruling.