Here's one more thought that might be helpful here: The Bill of Rights, including the clause barring deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process, wasn't enacted as some self-contained philosophical framework; it was enacted against a backdrop of English law and traditions, and while those traditions assumed a minimal role for the state, they did assume some role for the state - chiefly as protector of liberty and property.
Thus, for instance, say that a state statute is enacted that says, "No homeless person is guilty of any crime or tort for sleeping on any privately owned unimproved area, notwithstanding any 'no trespassing' signs, fences, and the like, and police officers will not eject any such person." I think there's a very good case to be made that this is a deprivation of the property owners' property rights without due process. (It might also be a taking of private property for public use without compensation, see Kaiser Aetna and Loretto Teleprompter.) But why? The government is just withdrawing the positive protection offered by criminal and tort law. (The statute doesn't deny the property owner the right to use force to eject the trespasser, so it isn't interfering with the owner's right to be free from punishment for such ejection.) Yet this positive protection is part of the backdrop assumptions against which the Bill of Rights was written: The legal system is available to protect the rights of property owners. Likewise, the Contracts Clause presupposes positive protection for the rights of contracting parties. I think something similar happens if the statute says, "No homeless person is guilty of any crime or tort for killing someone who is nonlethally trying to eject him from any privately owned unimproved area," or "no person is guilty of any crime or tort for killing someone who has been accused of a serious crime." The government is withdrawing the positive protection offered to life by criminal and tort law. But again this positive protection is part of the backdrop assumptions against which the Bill of Rights was written. Again, this doesn't mean that even the broadest current rules related to defense of life or property are unconstitutional; such rules might themselves be part of the traditional backdrop (though I can't vouch for the most capacious such rules). But it does suggest that we can't just dismiss this by saying that laws allowing killing raise no Due Process Clause problems. Eugene
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.