In reading the oral arguements of McDonald v Chicago I wondered when it was decided the Bill of Rights do not always apply? My understanding of the Bill of Rights is that they are the affirmative rights reserved to the citizens (thus negative rights of government) meaning they spell out what the goverent does not have the authority to deny to the citizens. Basically stating what the government can not impose upon the governed. http://supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf It would seem that there is some interpretation that these limits apply only to the federal government and not the states, except through incorporation. Can someone explain the legal precedent that would allow the states to override the rights of citizens?