As we say in the corral, now we’re down to the nut cuttin’.
Is due process done on a collective or individual basis? What are the requirements for due process?
Careful not to confuse this with petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances as in the cited case.
This judge made a good ruling. Not a great one, but good.
The right the judge used is an individual right (just like was affirmed in Heller). Just like all our rights. We do not have to belong to a “group” of anything except being citizens of this country, and not even that in most cases.
Due process is a process to remove, infringe or abridge a right or rights of an individual and based on their own actions already committed, not something they may or may not do in the future that may or may not be illegal.
And then there is that pesky wording in the 2nd.
Heller was a half-assed ruling. Scalia hedged. McDonald shouldn’t have been necessary (for example). The only purpose Heller served was to lay to rest the militia nonsense.
Now can an individual’s rights be limited or even removed through due process? Of course they can, if the individual’s actions warrant it and the state can prove it.
Scalia gave some specific examples in his hedging:
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Both of which must be proven by the state in individual cases through due process.
It is my opinion that Scalia was negotiating when he hedged. That this is another case of the Constitution getting in the way of a desired outcome; which is exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to do.
The 14th also confirms due process requirements:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Again, individual. Case. Not trends. Not groups. Actions committed, not prior restraint. The Constitution is clear.
And burden of proof.
See also Staples v. US concerning semiautomatic arms.
