If a TRO can, because of a credible accusation, temporarily deprive a man of his liberty pending a due process hearing, then what's the difference between such a TRO and a temporary sequestration of the man's property? The only explanation I can see (especially since a temporary deprivation of a man's liberty is far more onerous than a temporary deprivation of his property) is that gun owners seem to believe they should have special rights.
Simply enough, the rifles and handguns he lovingly placed in the gun safe will be handled like cordwood, stocks marred and dinged, muzzles dinged (affects accuracy and value) and on some high end rifles, that damage can cause the value of the firearms to decrease. Condition is important, too. Whether they are historically significant, family heirlooms, expensive custom guns, or just cheap pawnshop shooters, you can bet the only ones treated really well will be ones the confiscating agents might want to add the their collections. Should the owner be able to recover his property, you can bet the burden of proof of any damage will lie with the owner, and it is highly unlikely that would be (or in some cases, could be) compensated.
Additionally, the firearms will inevitably be inventoried (perhaps even completely), and lined up for the 'trophy' picture of all the guns rounded up, which would make the owner a robbery target if the owner recovers them. Add in some militant hoplophobes, and the owner and family members could be subject to everything from street protests to personal harassment and other politically motivated repercussions which would never have come about if the owner's property had remained private.