Former President Joe Biden has repeatedly framed “white supremacy” as the most lethal threat facing America, a stance reflected in his administration’s domestic terror strategy. This mindset unfairly targets conservatives and gun owners.

The Biden administration’s newly declassified Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism is raising alarms among Second Amendment supporters and civil libertarians. Ostensibly aimed at combating domestic violent extremism, the 15-page plan (originally crafted in June 2021 after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot) outlines a sweeping, government-wide approach. But buried in its technocratic prose are provisions that critics say blur the line between genuine security threats and ordinary, law-abiding Americans, particularly gun owners. The plan’s vague threat assessments and broad surveillance mandates have prompted warnings about government overreach and infringements on civil liberties – concerns echoed in commentary like a viral tweet by Kostas Moros, who noted “This is some of the strongest evidence I’ve seen of why the Second Amendment is a critical anti-tyranny tool”.  Many others pointed out how “right-wing extremism” is treated as the dominant threat and cautioned that this could justify targeting political dissent and gun ownership. It’s important to note that while the Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism was a Biden Administration operation, it’s based on an  ideological worldview prevalent on the left.  It should serve as both a warning and as a peak ‘behind the curtain’ of how the left would use government power to destroy Constitutional freedoms and hold on to power.

A Counterterror Plan That Targets “Ghost Guns” and Gun Owners

While a counterterrorism strategy might be expected to focus on preventing violence, Biden’s plan pointedly zeroes in on firearms and gun policy. In fact, under “Pillar Four: Confront Long-Term Contributors to Domestic Terrorism,” the plan calls to “rein in the proliferation of ‘ghost guns’; encourage state adoption of extreme risk protection orders; and drive other executive and legislative action, including banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines”. In other words, key gun-control objectives are explicitly folded into a document about fighting domestic terror. It’s an unusual (and to many, alarming) fusion of counterterrorism and gun policy. Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – hardly a gun rights group – criticized Biden’s 2021 strategy as a reflection of the government’s “ever-expanding authority to surveil and monitor American communities”. That authority now appears poised to encompass gun owners under broad labels like “domestic violent extremist.”

The plan also urges aggressive information-sharing with private tech companies to monitor threats, sparking worries that online speech and communities of law-abiding gun enthusiasts could be swept up in surveillance. The threat assessment language is notably broad – focusing on nebulous concepts of extremist ideologies – which raises the risk that individuals could be deemed security risks based on political views or associations rather than any criminal act. Others on X (Twitter) underscored the point, warning that by treating “right-wing extremism” as the top domestic threat, the administration is painting with too broad a brush. Lawful conservatives, gun-rights advocates, or simply outspoken citizens might find themselves unfairly scrutinized under such a paradigm, effectively chilling free speech and gun ownership rights.

“Right-Wing Extremism” Framed as the Primary Threat

President Biden has made no secret of his belief that violent right-wing ideologies – especially white supremacists – represent the “most lethal terrorist threat” to the homeland . “Not ISIS, not al Qaeda – white supremacists,” Biden emphasized in 2021 , a theme he’s repeated in speeches since. The newly declassified plan reflects this mindset, prioritizing domestic violent extremism (DVE) and hinting that the political far right is the likely target of enhanced enforcement. This focus troubles many observers. By fixating on a single category of extremism, the administration risks ignoring or downplaying other threats, while casting a wide net over millions of Americans who have committed no crimes.

Gun Owners of America reacted sharply to Gabbard’s disclosure of the plan, calling it “Biden’s secret plan to eliminate the Second Amendment in the name of ‘counterterrorism’”. That rhetoric may be fiery, but it captures the deep distrust engendered by a counterterror strategy that conflates ordinary gun-related activities with potential terrorist indicators. When terms like “militia violent extremist” or “gun enthusiast” get thrown into threat briefings, lawful gun owners fear they’re being profiled as enemies of the state. Nick Moros’s commentary on overreach fits into this sentiment – a warning that broad definitions of extremism can become a pretext for suppressing political opponents and eroding constitutional rights.

Biden’s Track Record: Pistol Braces, FFL Revocations, and More

These concerns don’t exist in a vacuum; they’re reinforced by the Biden administration’s track record of aggressive executive actions on guns. Over the past two years, the administration has imposed multiple new rules and enforcement policies that directly impact lawful gun owners and dealers – often justified as crime or safety measures, but viewed by detractors as part of a broader anti-gun agenda.

One prominent example is the ATF’s rule on pistol stabilizing braces. In early 2023, the Biden administration reclassified firearms equipped with arm braces (originally designed to help disabled shooters) as regulated short-barreled rifles. This rule required millions of owners to register those guns with the federal government or remove the brace, under threat of felony charges. Critics blasted the move as executive overreach. Even Congress took note – the House voted to overturn the rule, with Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) denouncing it as having “turned millions of gun owners into felons” overnight. “This rule doesn’t just infringe upon Americans’ Second Amendment liberties. It represents a dangerous government overreach by the administration,” Clyde argued. Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the brace regulation, and courts have granted temporary blocks for some plaintiffs, signaling that judges, too, see potential constitutional problems.

Similarly, the administration moved to expand the definition of who must hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell guns. Biden’s team pushed a new rule to clarify (and arguably broaden) what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. The proposed rule casts a “broad shadow” over private sales – any person who sells even a single firearm with the intent to profit might be deemed a dealer and required to obtain an FFL. Notably, the rule sets no minimal number of sales to trigger the license requirement; even one transaction could count if other factors (like reselling quickly or advertising online) suggest a business motive. Violations would be punishable by hefty fines and up to five years in prison. The vagueness of this standard is likely to chill lawful activity, as ordinary gun owners become unsure if selling a personal firearm or two could land them in legal peril. It’s easy to see how such uncertainty – “Do I need a federal license to sell my extra hunting rifle?” – might dissuade people from exercising their rights or engaging in legal sales.

Meanwhile, Biden’s “zero tolerance” crackdown on gun dealers has put legitimate businesses in the crosshairs. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) dramatically increased license revocations of FFL holders for paperwork mistakes under Biden’s watch. In 2022, the ATF revoked three times as many gun store licenses as the prior year, after Biden ordered tougher enforcement. The trend continued in 2023, with 157 FFLs stripped of their licenses, the highest number in 20 years. To put this in perspective, only 5 FFLs lost their licenses in the latter half of 2021; by 2022 that number jumped to 88, and then 157 in 2023. Many of these revocations stemmed from minor record-keeping errors rather than willful misconduct. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) reports that Biden’s policy has shuttered retailers over “minor clerical errors,” undermining Americans’ ability to purchase firearms from trusted local shops. The ATF even took to publicly “name-and-shame” dealers whose licenses were pulled or who closed down, tarring them as “bad apples” in press releases. For the firearm community, this is seen as punitive bureaucracy – using technicalities to drive gun sellers out of business, and by extension, making it harder for citizens to exercise Second Amendment rights.

From “Assault Weapons” Bans to Lawsuit Immunity Repeal

President Biden has consistently advocated for the classic wish-list of gun control measures, and these too are woven into the domestic terror plan. The Strategic Implementation Plan explicitly urges officials to pursue “banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” a long-standing Democratic objective. Biden has repeatedly called for such bans in public speeches, blaming AR-15-style rifles and standard magazines for America’s mass shooting tragedies. By inserting this aim into a counterterrorism blueprint, the administration implies that popular semi-automatic rifles owned by millions of citizens are somehow linked to domestic terrorism – a leap that gun owners find both insulting and ominous. It raises the question: if an American sportsman owns an AR-15 and happens to espouse conservative political views online, does he become a person of interest under this plan? The vagueness and breadth of the “extremist” category leave that unsettling question hanging.

In addition, Biden has targeted the firearm industry’s legal protections. He has urged Congress to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), the 2005 law that shields gun manufacturers and dealers from being sued when criminals misuse their products. “As I have repeatedly called for, Congress must repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act so we can fully hold gun manufacturers and dealers accountable,” Biden said in early 2021. Gun control groups cheer this idea, but gun rights advocates note that eliminating PLCAA would open the floodgates to bankrupting lawsuits – effectively punishing companies for the actions of third-party criminals. It’s another prong in Biden’s comprehensive effort to squeeze the gun culture from all sides: regulate accessories like braces, broaden who needs a license, revoke licenses at record rates, ban the guns and magazines in most common use, and sue the gun makers out of existence. The domestic terror plan’s declassification simply confirms that even national security policy was leveraged to advance this agenda.

Civil Liberties and Constitutional Concerns

Beyond the specifics of gun policy, there’s a bigger picture: the balance between security and liberty. The Biden administration insisted it could counter domestic terrorism “while safeguarding civil rights and civil liberties.” But many were skeptical. The inclusion of broad terms and ideological markers in threat assessments suggests that Americans could be monitored or penalized not for violent acts, but for viewpoints. We’ve seen this movie before – after 9/11, expansive surveillance and PATRIOT Act powers were justified by the threat of terrorism, only to later be used in ways that trampled privacy and due process. Now, with a domestic focus and a partisan tinge (emphasizing right-wing extremism), the potential for abuse is even more pronounced.

Even the ACLU, in reviewing the Biden strategy, lamented that it “relies too heavily on law enforcement suspicion, investigation, and policing of beliefs rather than actual conduct” and “invites expansion of intrusive and abusive police powers” in the name of prevention  . For gun owners, the concern is that owning certain firearms or voicing support for gun rights could be mischaracterized as a ‘red flag’ of extremism. If that happens, constitutionally protected activities – like posting on social media about government overreach or attending a Second Amendment rally – might prompt a knock on the door from federal agents. The chilling effect on free speech, free association, and the right to keep and bear arms cannot be overstated.

Ultimately, the declassification of this counterterror plan has given the public a rare look behind the curtain – and what many see looks less like a blueprint for stopping actual terrorists and more like a roadmap for expanding federal power at the expense of individual rights. Yes, America faces real threats, and no reasonable person objects to law enforcement doing its job to stop violence. But blurring the lines between violent extremists and peaceful citizens who simply disagree with the administration is a dangerous game. It risks turning legitimate dissent into a suspicious activity, and it treats constitutional rights as inconveniences on the way to some ill-defined notion of “security.”

Resisting the Slide Toward Overreach

In a free society, security must not come at the cost of our fundamental liberties. Lawful gun owners are not terrorists, and political dissent is not a crime. By all means, let’s prevent violence and punish those who commit it – but we must not allow a dragnet domestic terror policy to erode the very freedoms that define America. Biden’s counterterrorism plan, as revealed, unfortunately casts suspicion in all the wrong directions. Rather than focusing on identifiable criminal activity, it veers into social engineering – pushing gun control and monitoring citizens’ beliefs. That should concern not just gun owners, but every American who cares about the Bill of Rights. As this plan moved from paper to practice, vigilant oversight and public pushback was essential to ensure that the hunt for domestic terrorists doesn’t morph into a witch hunt against law-abiding Americans. Unfortunately, when government acts in the name of safety, far too often it is done behind the scenes and away from oversight.