A New York City attorney conceded this week that a proposed law regulating where residents could carry a gun would not have improved public safety.

“The rule could be repealed without a negative impact on public safety," city attorney Richard Dearing told the Supreme Court justices during oral arguments for the first gun-related case the high court has heard in years.

The law in question is a now-scrapped rule that would have required city residents to get a special permit to carry a firearm outside of their home, except when traveling to an official city shooting range.

A handful of gun owners sued the city over the law, which was abandoned after the Supreme Court announced it would take the case.

The gun owners say the New York City law violated their Second Amendment rights and are seeking damages.

The court is now set to rule on whether or not the case is "moot" since the local legislation has been pulled.

Nationwide, the case is seen as a follow up to District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 case reaffirming Second Amendment rights.

For the first time in 10 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard a major gun-rights case. But the drumroll of anticipation seemed to fade, as the debate in the high court Monday focused almost exclusively on whether the case should be dismissed as moot.

At issue was a New York law that allowed New York City residents to have a permit for a gun at home but barred them from transporting the gun elsewhere except to seven New York City shooting ranges. Three handgun owners who had such "premises licenses" challenged the law as a violation of their Second Amendment right to bear arms because they could not transport their guns to shooting ranges and competitions outside the city or to second homes.

"So then why is this case moot?" wondered Alito. "Because [the plaintiffs] didn't get all that they wanted," he insisted. "They wanted a declaration that the old law was unconstitutional, period."