It doesn't make sense because it's insane mental gymnastics being used to justify obviously unconstitutional conduct. The bill of rights is very, very, clear on this.
It’s only appropriate when any private citizen could do the same thing. IE: The Army suing a supplier for supplying them with a defective bullets is they same thing anyone who buys large quantities of bullets could do, but people would need to voluntarily enter into such relationships before this applies.
Of course someone in power is going to try and twist the meaning to their own gain.
That inevitable desire is literally why the rights needed to be included in the first place.
The US is deeply flawed but generally speaking we have a lot of rights
That's what the amendment system is for.
That's one of the problems with a codified constitution that's as ossified as the one in the US: the language used gets interpreted, and so the meaning of the language depends on the interpretations favoured by whoever's currently holding the reins.