So, let’s say the government comes by one fine morning, cheerily confiscates your beloved Smith & Wesson, and leaves a polite little note that says, “Sorry, friend—no guns for you.” Yesterday, owning that firearm was as legal as Sunday brunch. Today? You’re breaking the law just by having it. Now you’re wondering, “Is this a ‘taking’ under the Fifth Amendment, the part where Uncle Sam has to pay you if he swipes your property?”

The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause says the government can’t just take your stuff without giving you a nice little paycheck as compensation. Sure, that clause usually applies to physical property: land, houses, maybe the occasional beachfront the government decides would make a fine highway. But guns? Well, some would say firearms aren’t just property; they’re practically a birthright—a gift from the founding fathers, or maybe even from the heavens, depending on whom you ask. They’d argue we didn’t dump tea into the Boston Harbor for the right to stash tea in our cupboards but for the right to keep some heat in our holsters.

Others would scoff and say, “Rights? What rights? Guns have been around since forever, but that doesn’t mean we owe you money for every piece of contraband we yank.” Still, you might argue a gun ban is effectively a “taking” because you legally acquired it, invested in it, maybe even polished it on the weekends. But, like a landlord with a lease that expired yesterday, the government shrugs and says, “Things change.”

Is taking your gun really a taking? Legally, it’s murky. The courts might say it’s just regulation. To you, it may feel like they’ve “taken” something. But whether they owe you a dime for your troubles? Probably depends on how much the government values your gun rights.