That might be true in WI, however it's not true in some other jurisdictions. I'm thinking of NY and CA in particular.
There's significant variation on weapons laws between the states. As far as I know, no state has ever had an outright ban on possession if weapons ruled to be a taking.
PRECISELY.
The problem is, these are STATE actions, the takings clause, and the ex post facto prohibition are constitutional (federal) issues, and as others have pointed out, possession of those objects (and not use) was not banned (switchblades, etc). In the NY case, if you have those on your person in public, that is construed as "use", however, I don't believe possession was ruled illegal at home. (See the switchblade example). In the case of carrying those in public, confiscation isn't taking, as they are part of a crime.
My point remains, while states have banned things, there has not been a non-grandfathered confiscation without use from private homes of objects without renumeration, and I still can't think of one even with renumeration. Also, federal law is different, while there is constitutional supremacy w.r.t. Takings and ex post facto, different states have interpreted how to get around those differently, (kelo v new London) and they nearly always have been challenged.
So the point remains, can anyone think of a non-grandfathered, possession in ones home without use, banning with confiscation (with or without renumeration) of an object FEDERAL example (specifically, where the mere possession of the object was the crime rather than tied to a crime of use or manufacture). POST reconstruction.
Other than drugs, I can't think of anything, and even in those cases, constructional possession isn't applied (drug precursors for example).
At this point, I'm still just trying to make the point that it is legally a BIG reach, without much if any precedent.
England and a few other places were able to do it as RKBA wasn't enshrined, and getting over the "the right of the
people to
keep and bear arms" (emphasis mine) is a tough hump, especially given recent precedent.
I'm sure such a law, IF PASSED, would be challenged innumerable times, under a variety of defenses (takings, pure 2A, ex post facto, etc) not to mention there are plenty of states where RKBA is enshrined as an individual right in their state constitutions, leading to federal supremacy arguments (provided 2AM wasn't repealed through amendment, which would also be effectively impossible given the highly diverse nature of the amendment process which gives a tremendous amount of power to the flyover states.
