Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
had until 1958 to bring the present action or be forever barred. A. The Constitution and the Statute of Limitations Plaintiffs’ first argument for avoiding the impact of the six-year statute on their cause of action is that their claim is constitutionally based, and therefore it is unconstitutional to deprive them of their constitutional right, short of a full and fair decision on the merits. Since the right to compensation for a governmental taking of private property is constitutionally protected, the argument is stunning in its potential — it would have the effect of leaving all takings claims against the United States without a termination, except by ultimate resolution in the courts. It has been the common understanding that wrongs for which the law grants a remedy are 2002) ; Ave-nal v. United States, 100 F.3d 933 (Fed.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no right to monetary compensation for a regulatory taking in an inverse condemnation action
B. holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment
C. holding that riverboat casino was not a vessel
D. holding ripe a claim for a pre1987 taking because prior to first english california law did not permit landowners to seek compensation for a regulatory taking through an action in inverse condemnation
E. holding that regulatory ban on drift gillnet fishing was not a taking of fishing vessel and gear
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.