FWIW, Scalia emphasized that in his decision--that it is an a priori right, not granted by anyone but God.
Well, I tend to leave God out of it and focus on natural rights, but the end result is the same.
As a matter of course, it doesn't whether someone is lib/con, their entire thesis is immediately discredited upon any mention of 'grant', 'gives', etc in reference to the BoR.
As many of Framers well recognized, an enumeration of natural rights could give the impression that there may be some limit and/or gov't acquiescence, when neither is the case.
The ultimate manifestation of this corrupted understanding of natural rights is where we find ourselves 225 years later waiting with bated breath as we are judged by 9.