In the small town of Kennesaw, Georgia, law permits that each head of household must own at least one operational firearm with ammunition. Quebec photographer and filmmaker Nicolas Lévesque headed south in 2013 to meet the people of Kennesaw—many of whom were women. The result was In Guns We Trust, a photo essay and accompanying documentary about the politics of gun rights. Photo courtesy of Nicolas Lévesque.

A range officer waves me forward into the shooting bay. The semi-automatic rifle he places in front of me is surprisingly light in my shaking hands. “I’m probably going to get this all wrong,” I nervously shout, the only way to communicate thanks to the heavy-duty ear muffs strapped over our heads to protect our hearing. “Don’t worry,” he shouts back. “You’ll be fine.”

Once the gun is nestled against my shoulder and my hands are properly placed, my nerves suddenly fall away. I remind myself to lean toward the paper target dangling down range. Apparently, tilting back is a common rookie mistake, which some call the “the chick lean”—as though us fragile ladies retreat in fear of firearms.

I’m so focused on hitting the bull’s-eye, I no longer notice the burnt smell or hear the women on either side of me discharge their weapons. I pull the trigger, barely feeling the recoil or the brass casing fly out of the gun, joining hundreds of others scattered on the floor. Then I aim and fire again, feeling slightly more confident—and badass—with every shot.

Shooting off rounds of ammunition is not how this 42-year-old bleeding-heart liberal mom normally spends a Saturday morning. But this past April, I attended a “Guns and Gals” event hosted by far-right media outlet the Rebel in Gormley, Ont., about an hour north of Toronto. Part mixer, part fundraiser for the Rebel, the sold-out affair was the first of a cross-country tour. The web page, promoted to “freedom-loving females,” featured an image that played on the classic James Bond gun-barrel logo with the curvy silhouette of a woman in a pencil skirt and heels brandishing a rather large, hot-pink rifle where Bond normally appears.

I didn’t sign up to handle firepower, though. This was an opportunity to wrench myself out of my left-wing silo. Admittedly, I like the security of my warm and fuzzy social media feeds where my like-minded friends reinforce my opinions. Last fall, this echo chamber largely insulated me from the reality of the American election. I ignorantly took comfort in the Donald Trump bashing I saw on Facebook and held on to the hope that Hillary Clinton would prevail. When Trump became president, my love bubble burst and left me with a troubling thought: What if the far right is on the rise in Canada, too?

After an anti-Muslim demonstration took place outside a Toronto mosque in February, I decided to face my fears: I signed up for the Rebel’s email newsletter. I thought exposing myself to the far-right’s echo chamber might help me better understand them. If nothing else, I’d become more aware of Canada’s political spectrum.

Beyond content promotion, the Rebel’s emails were like personal letters, offering me concrete ways to get involved. After the Rebel’s U.K. host was arrested for contempt of court, for instance, I got an emergency request to sign a petition and help cover his legal fees. When this far-right group gets upset, it knows how to mobilize.

I had zero intention of responding to any appeals until the Rebel sent me an invitation for “Guns and Gals.” I immediately decided to go. Having once been an editor at Outdoor Canada magazine who covered hunting, I was familiar with the gun world. Shooting seemed like a suitable opportunity to actually spend time with the Rebel’s audience. But I was scared. The day before the event, the Rebel posted a video entitled “What is the Alt-Right?” In it, host Gavin McInnes angrily equated “left-wing spies” who infiltrate rightwing gatherings with followers of Hitler. I was terrified the “Guns and Gals” participants would smell my leftist views like a strong perfume and chuck me out.

“Just stay quiet and keep your head down,” I told myself.

“They’re going to hurt you,” my anxiety whispered back.

***

A smiling woman welcomes me at the door. She’s a more animated version of a Walmart greeter, showing me where to sign in and gather my complimentary pink camo T-shirt. While some enthusiastic attendees already have theirs on, I discreetly tuck mine in my bag. An Ezra Levant bobblehead grins at me from the merch table.

As we settle into a classroom, I count more than 30 women, ranging from their 20s to 60s. Some are solo and a few are with their male partners, but most are here with a friend, presumably for a girls’ day out. They definitely don’t meet my expectations: It’s an ethnically diverse group of friendly, chatty women, not the anger-fuelled vigilantes I had anticipated. Any of them could be my neighbour, relative, or even a friend.

Our group is the first of about six sessions, meaning about 150 women have paid $75 for a ticket. “Why are you ladies here?” Faith Goldy, one of the Rebel’s hosts, asks from the front of the room. (Goldy has since departed from the publication.) “Bucket list!” someone shouts. “My husband gave me a shotgun,” a woman at the front says. “So I could make a donation to the Rebel,” another quips.

“And how many of you have shot guns before?” Only a few of us raise our hands. Excited about how many female gun virgins are here, Goldy describes the wonders of shooting and the rise of North American women taking up the sport. In fact, just two years ago, the top shooter in Canada’s military was female.

Then she opens the floor to questions. One woman is curious about gun laws in Canada, to which Goldy explains the difference between owning handguns (restricted) and rifles or shotguns (non-restricted). Then she discloses her dislike of our country’s firearm regulations and concern that the laws will get even stricter. In her opinion, allowing concealed carry in Europe would solve the “terrorist problem.” Several women nod in agreement. Goldy encourages us to ask more questions—about anything at all, not just guns. From the back of the room, an elderly woman asks about M-103, which condemns hate crimes against Muslims. A lot of brows furrow. The Rebel has been vocally opposed to the motion, even starting a “Freedom to Offend” petition to try to stop it.

I do my best to follow Goldy’s explanation that M-103 is “Sharia creep,” a gateway for Pakistani laws to infiltrate Canada and an attack on free speech. “But what do we do now?” the same woman implores. (The House of Commons passed M-103 at the end of March.) Another woman informs the crowd that a protest will take place on Parliament Hill in early June. Goldy asks her to send the details so she can cover it.

My head hurts as I try to follow the comments bouncing around the room. I’m overwhelmed and completely out of my element. I’m thankful when the political discussion ends and an instructor comes in to give us some safety tips on gun handling before taking us to the range.

Afterward, as I walk back to my car, I feel a bit like those spent casings, not sure I’ve met my target. One day of shooting definitely doesn’t mean I fully understand people on the far right, but I realize this movement can’t be arrogantly dismissed by those of us on the left. If anything, we could probably learn a thing or two about translating ideas into action.

One thing I have noticed since “Guns and Gals” is a shift in my thinking: When someone in my social media feed makes fun of Trump supporters, calling them ignorant or stupid, I don’t snicker and keep scrolling. Instead, I cringe as I picture the ridicule directed at the women I met at the range. I feel like I can’t wag a finger at people on the right for stereotyping different groups and labelling them as “other” if I’m doing the exact same thing to them. These are diverse people with diverse backgrounds. They may not be my Facebook friends, but they are technically my neighbours and they seem afraid of losing whatever it is we have here in Canada. And to be honest, as I watch the far right gain momentum, I am, too.

UPDATE (October 10, 2017): The article has been updated from its original print version to reflect staffing changes at the Rebel.

UPDATE, Sept. 22, 1:55 pm: CanWest Postmedia reports that C-391 sponsor MP Candice Hoeppner “has all but conceded defeat” and “given up on last-minute lobbying” for today’s vote, and calls the eight liberals and 12 NDPers who voted in favour last time, “turncoats.” She estimates the government is one — one! — vote short, which is why it’s all hands on deck today: Jack Layton told reporters “Everybody will be there unless somebody gets struck by lighting.” The Prime Minister also flew back from New York where he was addressing the UN.

UPDATE, Sept. 22, 3:56 pm: There were questions about the registry during Question period, but seems to be nothing new to add based on that. However, Susan Delacourt just published a surprising and sad story about why Liberal MP Scott Simms, who originally voted to abolish the registry, has changed his mind today: because between the last vote and this one, his father took his own life, and the weapon he used was a long gun. Simms will not be talking about it publicly, but a colleague tweeted the story put the gun registry in “unprecedented perspective” during this morning’s Liberal caucus meeting. Addendum: Barb Adamski replies to us on Twitter that no gun registry is in a position to prevent suicides by a determined person, which it must be conceded is a fair point. However, it does not negate many other good reasons to register guns, and the fact that the story broke today is bound to be significant, no matter how indirect the connection to the vote itself. Addendum to the addendum: Delacourt explains on the Toronto Star blog why they published the story today before the vote.

*****

Today is the day that parliament will vote on bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. This private member’s bill (full text here), introduced by Candice Hoeppner, the Conservative MP for Portage-Lisgar, Manitoba, on May 15, 2009, if passed would bring about the end of the long gun registry, which is one component of the Canadian Firearms Program.

Note that there is a difference between a gun licence and gun registration — the RCMP describes the distinction as being analagous to a driver’s licence and vehicle registration. There are also three classes of firearms that the program regulates: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns have always been “non-restricted” — that is, anyone over 18 can purchase and own them as long as they’re registered and licensed.

Bill C-391 does not affect licensing requirements; the only thing the bill would repeal is the requirement to register a non-restricted firearm — i.e., a rifle used  for hunting game. The reason this distinction is important is because critics of the gun registry have focused on its cost, and they claim that repealing these requirements would save money. This claim, to put it bluntly, doesn’t hold water. The RCMP will continue to run a gun registry; almost all of the expense will continue to be incurred whether Bill C-391 passes or not.

The cost of the long gun registry has been widely misreported, misinterpreted, and deliberately overblown. An RCMP report (completed in February but not given to Parliament until August; it was promptly leaked to the CBC) has placed the cost of the long gun registry portion of the Canadian Firearms Program “in the range of $1.1 and $3.6 million per year.” The “$1 billion” figure that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other Conservative politicians have repeatedly quoted is simply not accurate. According to that same report, according to The Tyee, the $1 billion figure actually refers to the entire cost of the whole Canadian Firearms Program from 1995 to 2007.

The other source of criticism of the long-gun registry is generally perceived to split along urban-rural lines, with many game hunters unhappy at the cost and inconvenience of having to register their firearms. Hoeppner, introducing her bill, claimed that “law-abiding Canadian hunters, farmers and sport shooters … have been treated like criminals” since the introduction of the registry (in its current form) in 2001. As James Laxer noted this week on Rabble, however, the urban-rural break is a red herring. Plenty of people in the country want the registry to continue, particularly rural women. When polled, 47 percent of rural women supported the registry.

The registry’s other important support continues to be police forces themselves, who have unambiguously spoken out in support of the gun registry for years. Toronto’s Chief of Police, Bill Blair, is also president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and testified before parliament on Bill C-391 on May 26, 2010. He was clear on the position of law enforcement on the gun registry — it’s not a panacea, it’s a tool, and a useful one.

Like all of the tools we use, the firearms registry is not a perfect, universally effective tool. Not every criminal will register their weapons. Not everyone will obey the law. It will not deter every criminal nor will it solve every crime. The police never claimed it would.

What we do claim, with the authority that comes from actually using the information contained in the Firearms Registry every day, is that it is a tool that helps us do our job.

[…] In 1994, the CACP adopted a resolution calling upon the Government of Canada to enact legislation requiring the registration of all firearms, including long guns. This is a position from which the CACP has never wavered.

Leading up to today’s vote, police forces and other pro-registry groups from across the country — from Halifax to Toronto to Vancouver — have joined together to call for the registry’s continuation. The CACP, along with the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards issued this helpful one-pager correcting the “Top 10 Myths of the Canadian Firearms Program“:

Despite all this, today’s vote is expected to be a squeaker. When C-391 was last voted on, it passed with 164 votes in favour and 137 votes against, with 8 Liberals, 12 NDPers, and one independent siding with the Conservative government.

This time around, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has pledged to keep his party members in line to vote down the bill. NDP leader Jack Layton has not whipped his party, and NDP MPs will be free to vote their conscience. (Bloc Québécois MPs will all vote opposed, as they did last time). Layton has told the press that he is confident that the bill will be defeated, and that he has persuaded enough MPs in his caucus to switch their votes.

We’ll be following what goes on as we get closer to this evening’s vote, which is expected to happen around 5:45. Keep checking back here for details, or follow us on Twitter for any quick developments that crop up today. Have any questions about C-391 we haven’t answered here, or have any tips? Leave your questions and everything else in the comments below…

While we might like to think of ourselves as peacekeepers, the truth is that Canada houses a thriving military goods industry that includes everything from small arms to night-vision goggles. And while the companies that make up this industry are dutifully reporting to the federal government, the last time the feds reported to Parliament on our weapons trade was in 2002.

Governmental secrecy contributes to low rankings on the survey, explains Eric Berman, managing director of the SAS. Canada lost marks because we’re slow to release the data the government does have on our arms industry. For example, a report that looked at which Canadian weapons went where in 2003 to 2005 was only made available in 2008.

Perhaps the feds are so secretive because they don’t want us, or the rest of the world, knowing exactly how huge our military industry is. Last year, after being unable to find the necessary facts on our military goods industry, CBC researchers set to work and in the fall, released a report that contained some shocking numbers. They found that around 500 companies in Canada are making defence and security products and that between 2000 and 2007, Canada exported US$3.6 billion in military goods, making us the sixth largest weapons exporter in the world.

Currently the U.K. (which exported US$19 billion worth of defence gear in 2007 alone), along with the U.S. and Russia, are the world’s top military goods exporters. But with the Tories’ June amendment to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List now allowing us to sell weapons to 11 new countries, including Bulgaria and Turkey, expect our defence gear industry to only grow in the future.

As for the lack of federal reports on our arms industry, Michael O’Shaughnessy, spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, explains that there is no legislative requirement to create such documents and any such publications, past or future, are produced as a voluntary transparency measure. He does add that a report on our 2006-2007 arms exports is currently being prepared for public release on the Internet.

So maybe the SAS’s annual reports are starting to pay off and that, explains Berman, is his organization’s goal. “We hope through the barometer to encourage greater transparency.” Because without that transparency, “it makes tackling illegal trade all the more difficult.”