Another controversial, divisive topic drawing large crowds to the steps of the US Supreme Court.

This time it’s about the Second Amendment.

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association sued New York City on behalf of three city gun owners.

At issue was a rule mandating a firearm be kept at either only an owners home or at a city-approved shooting range. At the time, the city rules did not allow certain license holders to transport their weapons to ranges or second homes outside the City.

“This is a very important case. My clients have been litigating this case for over five years,” said Paul Clements, Attorney Representing Gun Owners.

“But there’s a curveball, after the suit was filed New York State amended the gun laws which addressed the complaints in the litigation. New York City argues because of that - the case should be dismissed.

“New York City and New York State actually gave them everything that they had asked for before this argument and that was made very plain in this argument today. The case is moot,” said Jim Johnson, New York City Chief Legal Counsel.

The plaintiffs argued throwing the case out shouldn’t be an option and want a decisive ruling to not only clarify the scope of the Second Amendment but to protect gun owners from what they see as municipal harassment.

Since the landmark 2008 case affirming the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms - there’s been no real clarity on the extent to which states and localities may or may not limit it.

The Court’s liberals especially Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed in favor of dismissal while conservatives such as  Samuel  Alito and  Neil  Gorsuch felt the High Court needed to weigh in.

Chief Justice Roberts appeared split down the middle.

Depending on how the Justices rule, the case could affect how and where owners can carry, fortifying some gun laws, and possibly invalidating others.

“We’re very, very hopeful that the court will decide this case on the merits and in favor of the petitioners but we’re very gratified that we’ve had our day in court to vindicate these important constitutional rights,” said Clements.