No I wouldn't, and considering that the engineering concept of a 'micro-stamp' pistol has yet to be proven workable in any sort of reliable practical way, the passage of this 'micro-stamp pistol' law on the part of California lawmakers is really nothing more than the same thing the New Jersey legislature tried to do with their so called 'smart pistol' legislation some years ago. The real goal in both cases being to ban firearms, and using what is in effect fictional technology as the excuse to do so.
Just like with the 'smart pistol' concept, I think firearms manufacturers might try to do some R&D on 'micro-stamp pistols', but I doubt any would actually try to put them in production. This is mainly because any R&D work would only confirm what is already known, that the concept simply isn't workable in as far as reliably producing a consistent micro-stamp on a cartridge in real world conditions. More importantly any attempt to put one of these unreliable micro-stamp firearms (of any type) into production would almost certainly cut severely into a firearms maker's profit margin, since the firearm simply wouldn't sell well anywhere they weren't required by law, and the firearms market in these places (i.e. California) simply isn't big enough compared to the overall national market to make producing and selling a so called 'micro-stamp pistol' profitable. If you are a manufacturer, why spend any time and money producing a product line that is virtually guaranteed to always stay in the red?
I think what will happen in 2010, is that most, if not all, firearms manufacturers will simply stop selling pistols in California, because it just won't be economical to try to produce and sell pistols based on a fundamentally unworkable technological concept, that no one outside of California will have any interest in buying. Furthermore, for any gun makers who try to produce one of these unreliable so-called 'micro-stamp' pistols in 2010, it is more than likely that they would get so much bad press and diminished sales because of irate gun owners in the rest of the country, which is a much bigger combined market than California, that I doubt they would try to keep such a pistol in production for very long. For the gun maker it would be similar to what happened to Smith and Wesson when they caved into those lawsuits in the 90s, and they were almost put out of business by massive sales losses as a result.
The passage of this useless 'micro-stamp pistol' law by California is of course not a positive development for self-defense rights, and while it is probably an irreversible setback for those who live in California, I doubt it will effect anyone else, in the same way that D.C.'s and Chicago's handgun bans didn't lead to the banning of handguns in the rest of the country. In the long run it might even have a net positive contribution to self-defense rights, since anytime a useless law like this is passed, it provides real world proof like no other method can, that laws legislating physical features of firearms have no affect on either the crime rate or crime solving rate. Consider that New Jersey ballistic fingerprint law that requires all handguns sold in New Jersey to come with a couple of fired shell casings for entering into a ballistic fingerprint database. This law has cost New Jersey tax-payers millions of dollars and hasn't prevented or solved a single crime, and I firmly believe that the complete and utter failure of this law in New Jersey is the main reason similar laws haven't been passed anywhere else.
