Gun activists are sounding the alarm on California’s new firearm law, saying it is a clear infringement on the American people’s Second Amendment right.

Sam Paredes, the executive director of Gun Owners of California, said that his lawyers are working on coming up with a plan on how to fight against the liberal governor’s new law.

“There’s a full expectation that the firearms industry will have a very strong reaction towards the signing of this bill,” Paredes said, adding “they are really, really trying to be nothing but vindictive against lawful people in the firearms industry. All of our attorneys are in the process of evaluating what we are going to do on this thing.”

Paredes also believes it is obvious that Newsom’s gun law is retaliation against gun owners and the court because of Texas’ abortion law.

That’s right, the argument is that the law that allows lawsuits against gun manufacturers is retaliation against Texas and its abortion law. Considering some of Newsom’s other moves of late, that’s hard to argue against.

However, there are some important differences between abortion and guns.

For one thing, one goes to an abortion provider generally to get an abortion. As such, the Texas law–and I’m not commenting on the merits of the law–is able to focus exclusively on the act of abortion.

California’s new law, however, is different.

People buy guns for a plethora of reasons. Some buy because they just like guns. Others get them for self-defense. And yes, some people obtain firearms for illicit purposes.

However, the gun industry isn’t able to ascertain just why someone wants a gun. Further, unlike abortions, you can get a stolen gun on the black market.

Now tell me, how is Glock responsible for a bad guy with a stolen gun? How is Glock responsible if a California gun store sells a gun to someone with no criminal record but who, it turns out, had malicious intent?

The answer is, they’re not.

What’s more, Newsom doesn’t care. That’s because Paredes is right. This is retaliation for Texas and its abortion bounty law. It has nothing to do with making the state safer, it’s about lashing out. Calling the law “vindictive” is certainly appropriate.

However, Newsom and his fellow anti-gunners haven’t really thought through what would happen if all the gun companies decided to stop selling guns to anyone in California.

I don’t just mean private parties–which is where people like Newsom hope laws like this will go–but governmental entities in the state as well. After all, if a stolen gun could potentially result in a lawsuit for them, why risk a police officer’s weapon being stolen either?

In other words, cutting off California entirely could certainly be warranted from a gun manufacturer’s perspective. After all, they can’t be sued for guns they didn’t sell, right?

Well, maybe not, since illegally trafficked guns would still leave them open, most likely, but they’d still be justified in trying to mitigate the risks.

Unfortunately, I don’t know any gun companies that will cut off California entirely, which I get. Yet cutting off the governments of California is something that at least one company has already done. Barrett famously refuses to sell guns to governmental entities in states where average citizens can’t buy their guns.

So take that basic initiative, ramp it up a bit, and see how long before California rethinks it’s position.