I'm sorry I didn't spell out every single step of thinking in my post. To appeal to simpler minds, let me rephrase it:
If the United States arms industry wishes to retain their civilian market in the long term, it may be in their interest to consider a stop to sales in California. It is clear that California's state government has the aim of total civilian disarmament. It is also clear that civilian complaints in California have no impact on stopping, much less reversing this trend toward total gun elimination for peaceable citizens.
The micro-stamping technology that will be necessary on new guns is expensive. When the price of an item increases significantly, the demand generally will drop for the item as it falls out of the price range of potential buyers. Thus, the manufacturers will have to sell guns with lower margins, decreasing their profits. So, the gun manufacturers have two options here: comply with the California regulations and introduce micro-stamping to all guns they produce (wouldn't make sense to pay for the technology and only use it for a small portion of arms produced) and reduce their margins and total sales across the United States; or start a gun embargo against California, and continue business as usual in the rest of the country.
Now, the manufacturers also face the reality that so long as California continues on this path, there will eventually be no civilian arms market in California. A refusal to sell to law enforcement in California will spark an outrage among the law enforcement community in the state, putting pressure on them to persuade the legislature to repeal this *************. Or else they don't get any guns.
The gun manufacturers, if politics continue as usual, will be forced out of business. That's a hell of a lot more of a loss than the sales of California. And those sales will only be lost if the threats alone fail to cause any action.
I don't want to see California gun owners lose the ability to buy new guns, but it would be very naive of them to think that they will have access to new guns for much longer. Which is better: a permanent inability to buy new guns due to restrictive anti-gun legislation, or a temporary inability to make these purchases until the state government gives in to the demands of the manufacturers?
And since I haven't outright stated it, I'm offering this as a suggestion to the manufacturers to take upon themselves. I'll draw an analogy to conclude: if OPEC can use oil embargoes to push around the United States of America and the rest of world into complying with goals of the Arab world, why can't a gun embargo work to force state governments to comply with the gun manufacturers' demands? If anything, to the oversized police forces in this country, guns and ammunition are much more valuble than oil.
HankT, are you just upset that your beloved NRA once again failed (or chose not) to stop anti-gun legislation?