Way back in 1820, the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights was binding only on the federal government, and that States can violate it. (Barron v. Baltimore). Starting in the 1910s, the Supreme Court began to hold that some of the Bill of Rights was made binding on the States through the 14th Amendment, but it did so through what it called "selective incorporation"-- meaning that the Supreme Court decided on an individual basis if rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are binding on the States or not. So far, most of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the States; two provisions have been held definitely not binding on the states (the 7th Amendment right to trial by jury in civil cases, and the Grand Jury clause of the 5th Amendment); and a few provisions have not been ruled upon either way by SCOTUS (the 2nd Amendment being one of those).
Everything else is examples of judicial activism and Constitutional re-writes from the bench that the rest of us have been railing against for more threads than just this one.
While your post outlines the current legal fiction we are currently trying to rectify, it isn't how the system was set up to run initially.