The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request to review a ruling on Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act on Jan. 13.

The 2009 Montana law sought to exempt guns made, sold and kept inside the state’s borders from federal regulations.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier ruled that the Supreme Court had already decided the issue in favor of continuing federal regulations. The federal government relies on the U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause to enforce firearms regulations.

Montana Shooting Sports Association president Gary Marbut, who filed the lawsuit and helped write the state law, said that while the Supreme Court’s denial “may not bode well,” his organization was not ready to concede.

Marbut had announced plans to manufacture a youth-model bolt-action rifle called the Montana Buckaroo and sell it under the Montana law. He filed the lawsuit after the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms told him he must abide by federal regulations.

Advocates of gun controls claimed the Montana law could make it easier for felons to obtain guns without a background check. Supporters of gun rights claimed the Supreme Court must decide the issue because the Montana law seeks to limit Congress’ authority to regulate firearms.

Attorneys general in nine states joined Montana Attorney General Tim Fox in filing intervenor briefs supporting Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act. A separate petition submitted by Fox is still pending before the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile in a separate matter, Fox and Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 13 requesting a review of a lower court’s ruling that allowed political parties to endorse candidates in nonpartisan judicial elections.

The case originated in 2002 when the Sanders County Republican Party sued the state, saying it wanted to endorse judicial candidates that shared its judicial philosophy.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the state’s ban on party endorsements in judicial elections violated the constitutional right to free speech.

In their petition, Fox and Motl said the constitutional issues involved were “of extreme and fundamental importance” to the state’s right to decide how judicial elections are held. They also said the appellate court had “hurried” its decision and ignored “the constitutional underpinnings supporting the state’s sovereign authority to institute nonpartisan judicial elections.”