Magpul's bread and butter is mostly with the open civilian market, so they are wise to react to attempts to kill civilian purchases. Other companies like Glock probably wouldn't care too much because they are well established in the closed .gov market.
I never understood this mentality.
There are between 800k and 1 million sworn law enforcement officers, fed and local, in the US.
There are 150 million gun owners. 47 percent of Americans answer that they have at least 1 gun in the home. At 310 million total US population, that means nearly half own guns. You want to quibble over interpretation in regards to that then the most we're arguing over might be 25 million.
But that's 1 million, versus over 100 million.
If Glock had 1% of the civilian market share... they're on par with having a 100% monopoly on the law enforcement market share. And they only have about 60% of the law enforcement market, sharing the rest with Sig, Beretta, S&W and whomever else has the remaining scraps.
So, they are willing to rile up the 100+ million gun owners over a market slice of 600k or so?
And the gunnies like most of us here... I don't have enough digits to count all the guns I own. I currently don't own a Glock, but I have in the past. I imagine there are dozens of Glock owners here, many of whom own more than 1 specimen. And pay attention to things like this.
The US firearms market is CONSUMER driven. No LEO driven.
If consumers were to actively punish manufacturers that complied and kowtowed to leftists/statists, they'd go out of business. There isn't enough government contracts to keep them afloat.
