David Codrea asks a great question.

If real property can be taken away from its owner by a community based on the plunderer's definition of "public good," why can't tangibile property be similarly confiscated?

Things like guns...?

He's right. Using the term "public good" as loosely as the court did to take away someone's property opens up a door that we may never fully shut again. If they can take someone's home what's to stop them from taking anything else? Nothing.