The author of the linked article uses this argument against the Supreme Court hearing and ruling on the case:
The plaintiffs, however, would like the Court to hear the case, perhaps because they expect that the newest justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, will aggressively interpret the Second Amendment and invalidate gun-control legislation. Given that the case is transparently moot, the plaintiffs are relying on an exception known as the “voluntary cessation” rule. The rule allows a court to decide a case that has become moot because a defendant voluntarily ceased its conduct.
But the voluntary-cessation exception exists to prevent defendants from temporarily stopping their conduct, only to restart it once a court dismisses a case for being moot. That’s not a risk here, because New York City and New York State would both have to change their laws again to prevent the plaintiffs from transporting their handguns. While that’s theoretically possible, it would require a change in the law—a much more significant obstacle than a defendant’s mere change of heart, which is what the voluntary-cessation exception is meant to protect against. And it is inappropriate for the Court to presume that the City and state, both government actors, are acting in bad faith and will reverse course to reinstate their previous laws.
(Emphasis mine.)
I don't know whether she is honestly mistaken, purposefully misleading, or completely unaware of NY City and NY State politics, but the pressure the plaintiffs put on to have the case heard was the result of the awareness that members of the NYC Council planned on doing exactly what she says they wouldn't dare do - change the law ever so slightly and reenact it.
EDIT: The folks at Bearing Arms (bearingarms.com) discuss the case as well.
(post is archived)