This thread started with the false analogy that because an individual could lose a right for specific cause, such as the commission of a crime, that a group could lose a right without cause simply by the passage of a law.
It is in this context that I use due process of law (as you know) in reference to the deprivation of an individual right for cause.
As you know it is a concept of law that a person can be deprived of a right for specific cause, such as having committed a felony. However, people can not arbitrarily have their rights circumscribed. As it is not a just concept to have individuals suffer the penalty of law without just cause neither does is it just for a group to suffer penalty of law without just cause.
That is pursuant to the normal power of the government to enact and enforce laws. In the case of specifically protected rights protected rights there is a much greater hurdle than mere justice to be overcome.
In such areas we have a clear example in the treatment of speech. In the matter of speech we do not permit laws to exist that would prevent speech prior to exercise, we only punish the exercise when it results in or causes a clear violation of something other just law. In that case we call it the prohibition of prior censorship.
Similarly with guns, the prohibition of guns prior to the commission of a crime is prior censorship. It is the expectation that the mere possession of a gun will result in the misuse of a gun. This is what was accomplished by the elimination of censorship over the decades in removing the presumption that speech, art, expression would necessarily lead to the violation of other standing laws.
The lack of necessary connection between speech and crime, and guns and crime does not give the government any compelling interest for the government to find exceptions within a protected rights. Rights are so important that it behooves a wise government to err on the side of the right rather than on the side of infringement.
As the claim that pornography will lead to a breakdown of public morality is spurious so to the claim that guns lead to an increase in crime. That guns are used in the commission of crimes is no more reason to ban them than is the use of speech in the commission of a crime (certainly much more common) a cause for banning speech.