Regarding “Searches and seizures”, the original post seems to say the roommates interfered with a right stated in the Fourth Amendment when they violated the gun owner’s right to be secure against unreasonable searches. Are you going to tell me that We The People only have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches conducted by the Federal Government and that we have no such right when the unreasonable searches are conducted by others of us among We The People?
Regarding “Right to trial by jury” and “Presumed innocence”, I don’t have an instance at hand, but I believe there have been cases where guilt was presumed followed by a lynching with no trial by jury involved.
“How does one apply the idea that some of those Amendments are applied to We The People while some of them apply only to the government?”
And
“The fact that the Bill of Rights governs only the government is terribly important.”
Once again, what I wrote is:
I disagree that the Bill of Rights is only “a set of rules which were supposed to prevent the (Federal) government from passing certain classes of laws.” The Bill of Rights is a statement of Rights, some of which predate and do not depend on it for their existence and some of which are granted by it. The intent of stating them is to prevent the Federal Government from “passing certain classes of laws”, but they are not just a set of rules. (Emphasis added.)
Can you cite a single example of a private citizen being sentenced or fined for violating another person's Constitutional Rights? I can't find one case.
A law must be enforceable. To that end, it must must have fines or prison sentences specified. There are neither of these related to the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, courts rule against the Constitutionality of laws passed by government identities. This is of itself proof positive of my stance. Accept this. It is good for YOUR Liberty!