I'm suggesting that the presense of such declarations in state constitutions certainly makes it look that way. I wonder if anyone has insight into the ratification debates on the BOR to see if the (let's just pick one:) Virginia delegation really thought that 9 of the 13 could put restrictions on what they could do at the state level?
How many state constitutions even have these rights enumerated?
Just out of curiosity, I google'd up a few. Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia all explicitly enumarate freedom of religion, assembly, speech, rights of the accused (basically fully redundant to federal BOR). Iowa is one of only 4 states that does not have a state counterpart to the 2nd, but I think that may have been more a function of the times (1857).
It is also a matter of fact that the founding fathers intended for it to be that way. See John Marshall's then-famous but now long forgotten ruling in Barron v. the mayor and city of Baltimore. That ruling defined how the bill of rights was applied until the civil war. It effectively stated in the clearest of terms that the national bill of rights applied only to the national government, meaning that the states were governed by their own respective bills of rights instead.