Originally Posted by scholling
As far as how the taking clause goes, if sales and transfers are banned then the value becomes $1.
How does it follow that something has no value simply as a result of limits on transferability? I don't fancy myself any kind of constitutional scholar, so I apologize if there's some grounds for that, but my understanding is courts are often reluctant to go to extremes making valuations. Fair market value is a common measure. Even when something is not given its whole fair market value, some significant value is often still acknowledged.
Anyway, if you're worried about EBRs getting banned, you can at least buy a Remington R-15 - that's a hunting rifle, not a military assault weapon, because it's painted with a commercial camouflage pattern instead of a matte or military pattern finish. And "reasonable" gun legislation only wants to take the military assault weapons from gangbangers - it's pure "malarkey" that it'd affect legitimate sporting arms.