The fifth amendment says that private property shall not be taken "for public use" without fair compensation. I don't think that gun rights groups have a good argument that banning a product and calling it contraband is the same as seizing it and using it for public use.
I believe the intent and purpose of that part of the constitution was meant to refer to taking property that was actually going to be used by the government or re-distributed from one group of private owners to another to better fulfill the government's public purpose.
But I think there are "due process of law" rights are at issue here because the government is banning a valuable product that many people paid between $100 and $500 for. And unlike alcohol or marijuana or other drugs, these products, these bumpfire or slidefire stocks, are not consumables. They're not disposable, and they were intended to last for a lifetime.
When the government bans a new synthetic substitute for marijuana, or bands a new type of drug that we generally call "bath salts," that is something that had not been regulated before, but the product only has de minimis value. It only costs a few dollars to buy, so that's the only amount of money that has been wasted if the government requires you to destroy it or turn it over to the authorities.
But product costing hundreds of dollars are in a different category .
I think fundamental fairness, and substantive due process, requires that the government buy back the stocks and compensate the owners for the monetary loss of value .
our Constitution itself teaches us that the dollar value of something can affect how much or how many rights you have as you fight to keep it. In civil suits, if the value in controversy is less than $20 you do not have a right to a jury trial, but you do if it is over that dollar threshold.
= new reply since forum marked as read