The principle that the 5th Amendment even applies to a state law must rely on the belief that the drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment intended, through the 14th Amendment, to make the BOR applicable to the states (no one claims that the BOR applied to the states before the 14th Amendment)
There have been many good books and law review articles debunking the fiction that the BOR was incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment. Probably the most thorough analysis was done by Charles Fairman who reviewed all of the Congressional debates around the 14th Amendment, the state ratifying proceedings and other original sources...he wrote an article in the Stanford Law Review in 1949 in which he concluded that the proponents and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to make the BOR applicable against the states. He compared the "mountain of evidence" supporting his conclusion with "the few stones and pebbles that made up the theory that the 14th Amendment incorporated Amendments I to VIII."
This should not surprise anyone...if the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment really intended to incorporate the BOR against the states...one would think they would have clearly done so...maybe drafted a provision that said..."the first 8 Amendments to this Constitution are incorporated against the states" or something like that...but, of course, they did not intend to do so...so those who like to still pretend that the BOR applies to the states claim that it is done through the clause of the 14th Amendment that reads: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law"
If you're confused as to how that clause can be construed to apply the BOR to the states...you should be...it seems that such a ridiculous construction can only make sense to a lawyer
OK, then what was the original meaning of "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."?
Not having your property taken seems like an immunity to me. Just like not having your guns taken.