I think the 14th extended the bill of rights to state government.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Bill of Rights is the Constitution, ratified (validated) by the States. She is clearly wrong and trying to create a false narrative to stand on for her own reason's.

I thought (could be wrong) that originally the Bill of Rights only limited what the federal gov't could do. Then some future Amendment, maybe #14, made those limitations apply to state and local gov'ts. Otherwise the states could ban unpopular speech or guns, and it would be legal as long as it wasn't the Fed gov't doing the banning. Filipovic claims that under "Constitutional originalism", local gov't could ban guns or unpopular speech. I think that's incorrect. Maybe she's setting up a false choice between a) accepting the Constitution plus Bill of Rights minus the later Amendments and b) interpreting the Constitution very broadly so it could mean almost anything.

"Filipovic touts herself as a “non-practicing lawyer.” Like many in the legal profession, she suffers from “J.D. impairment” – J.D. referring to Juris Doctor, the title conferred on law school graduates. I don’t doubt that she knows plenty about the law, but her most recent tome reveals she knows virtually nothing about the Constitution. They don’t teach that in law school."

She speaks out of her ass. The Bill of Rights are the first Ten Amendments.

Is Ms. Filipovic says the Bill of Rights would not apply to local gov't under a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Is that true? I thought one of the Amendments made those limitations on gov't power apply to the states.