A clarification: the FBI doesn't "grant" any right. Facing a lawsuit, the FBI is only stopping an infringement of O'Keefe's right.
Fun fact: The Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights, either. SCOTUS made this clear in US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876):
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
Although this decision was after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS refused (and still does) to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights against the states. They have selectively incorporated specific rights using the Due Process clause.
So, this precedent was used to uphold state gun control laws until McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states.
However, the original doctrine stands: rights are pre-existing. The Constitution only prohibits infringement of those rights.
A clarification: the FBI doesn't "grant" any right. Facing a lawsuit, the FBI is only stopping an infringement of O'Keefe's right.
Fun fact: The Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights, either. SCOTUS made this clear in US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876):
Although this decision was after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS refused (and still does) to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights against the states. They have selectively incorporated specific rights using the Due Process clause.
So, this precedent was used to uphold state gun control laws until McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states.
However, the original doctrine stands: rights are pre-existing. The Constitution only prohibits infringement of those rights.