The second case is about the contract case between the New York City versus the New York State Rifle and pistol association. The case was set to address if the ownership of a gun law prohibits the transportation of a firearm that is lessened away from home. The case was seeking to whether the act was a violation of the constitution’s amendment number two. There was additionally the need to clarify whether the act has an impact on the rights to travel and the clause on commerce. Initially, since it was a gun-related case that turned out to be the first one, the case had been in review for about ten years. Upon the agreement on the case, the New York State and New York City had to amends its laws s to comply with the laid down proceedings. The supreme court in April of 2020 cane to a decision that the case was in a moot form. The court was thus returned to the courts of the lower rank for required corrections to be made. Before the amendment of the laws in the city, there was a perception that the case a good channel for the expansion of gun rights by the supreme court in the united states. In their dissenting statement, the judges in the supreme court deliberated that the case was not moot and that the law of New York was in violation of the constitution’s second amendment rights. They also claimed that there was a narrow interpretation. A statement of concurrence was issued by justice Kavanagh but, to some extent, agreed with judge Alotos point of view.