As a hunter who is proud of the American hunting tradition there is no doubt in my mind that the senior leadership of the National Rifle Association has sold us out and become a front group for the Republican Party. The GOP’s interests come first – and that leaves hunters behind. There’s a reason Grover Norquist and CPAC's David Keene sit on the NRA’s Board – and I think we all know it has nothing to do with hunting or gun rights.

But it's not enough to say this here on DailyKos or in the blind to my buddies while waiting for the ducks to come. That's why I started the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) and that's why we stand up for gun owners who reject the extremism of the NRA leadership.

We all know the NRA has no qualms about attacking gun owners who don’t agree with their "soldier of fortune" philosophy. Remember Jim Zumbo, the dean of outdoor writers whose 30 year career was destroyed by NRA because he had the audacity to write that AK-47s were not a good choice for deer hunting. Or Smith & Wesson, when they agreed with the Clinton administration that a free gun lock with a new gun is a good idea. Now the NRA wants to label AHSA as the "enemy in camouflage". The problem is most rational thinking sportsmen are beginning to understand that it’s really the NRA who is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of America’s 40 million hunters.

In the summer and fall of 2006 there was an emerging a hot button issue about public lands. The Bush Administration was proposing the sale of millions of acres of federal forest land, land that America’s hunters have had easy access to for decades. Predictably, the NRA was silent on the issue because they did not want offend their friends George Bush and Dick Cheney.

A large tract of land that would have been up for sale under the Bush proposal was a portion of the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri. The incumbent Republican Senator, Jim Talent, who was in a tough race to hold on to his Senate seat initially supported the NRA-backed Bush plan to sell off the Mark Twain National Forest. Not surprisingly, that didn’t sit well with rural hunter s and shooters. Nor did it sit well with Talent’s opponent, Claire McCaskill, who had hunted the Mark Twain National Forest as a young girl with her father.

AHSA decided it was time to take on "goliath" and we went directly to Missouri’s hunters to expose NRA’s betrayal. We unleashed an award winning direct mail campaign that caught NRA operatives off guard, we endorsed McCaskill and we ran some strategic radio ads in rural Missouri to insure hunters knew what NRA was doing to their hunting heritage in the "show me’ state.

The NRA lobbyists don’t like to admit defeat. But in 2006, in Missouri, they had to. In a post-election analysis that appeared in NRA’s flagship political magazine First Freedom and on the website, NRA’s top lobbyist, Chris Cox described AHSA’s work in Missouri:

That AHSA slogan is probably laughable to the NRA leaders like Cox because they long ago sacrificed the hunting tradition for the DC power base. I will fight to protect the lands we love, but NRA leaders like Cox and LaPierre won’t. They just want to protect their place in the conservative Republican power structure.

It’s not in the nature of the NRA senior execs to acknowledge a loss. So when they do, it’s a big deal. That’s why it was significant when Chris Cox acknowledged AHSA’s role in Talent’s defeat:

That’s right. And we have our eye on several swing states this year.

Sure the NRA consultants will attack us. That’s what they do. The NRA leadership had to react because they know AHSA poses a real threat to the NRA power base. The NRA’s leaders have lost their connection to America’s hunters and shooters who care about their communities and their environment.

None of this should come as a surprise to progressive who love to hunt and shoot. Hunters are extremely concerned about access to public lands. According to a 2003 Field & Stream National Hunting Survey, 85% of hunters think that their state should use public funds to acquire more land for public hunting. Public access and public lands matter.

Our research shows that there are millions of gun owners who share our progressive values. They need to know there is an alternative voice to the NRA. A voice that shares their concerns and puts their interests first.

There is no reason why progressives should lose the hunter and shooter vote to the right-wing NRA supported candidates. As a gun owner, hunter and conservationist I ask you who is the real "enemy in camouflage"?

Today, as promised, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (ASHA) filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark Second Amendment case, Heller v. The District of Columbia. ASHA believes the case, which found the Second Amendment is an individual right, should be affirmed, but on a non-Constitutional basis.

I'm not a lawyer but we worked with some of the best legal minds in the country on our brief, and I mean lawyers who really know how the Supreme Court operates. I can tell you that Supreme Court briefs filed by the two parties in this case – and most of the other amicus briefs -- take the very traditional and mutually exclusive (of course) interpretations of the Second Amendment: an individual's right to bear arms vs. the so-called "collective right" to have a citizen militia. All the briefs can be found at the Scotusblog (we’re listed as "Major General John D. Altenburg, et al.")

Instead of playing this game and picking one of these sides, we have taken what I think is a unique approach in arguing that the language of the Second Amendment does not support pitting individual rights against group rights. We argue that just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is a blend of both individual rights and community rights, with each depending on the other. And, we think it's pretty obvious that "a well-regulated militia" actually depends on individual recruits who have familiarity and training with firearms. The brief we submitted today, which was written by some of DC's most experienced Supreme Court lawyers, argues that the individual right to bear arms is essential to the collective public interest in a "well regulated militia," and that the DC Gun Law is not authorized under the DC Home Rule Act – which according to our lawyers gives the Supreme Court a non-Constitutional basis to affirm the decision of the lower court that found an individual right to keep and bear arms.

We think our distinctive approach, focusing on the DC Home Rule Act, protects the gun rights of hunters and shooters, while maintaining the rights of communities to enact laws to protect its citizens. That’s critical to us as we know that community safety is very important to a majority of hunters.

I am very proud that 11 senior and former military leaders have joined AHSA’s amicus brief. Their voices lend credence to our argument that rigorous training with firearms is a strong predictor of success in basic training and in the military. Any way you look at the gun issue, lawful and regulated practice with appropriate firearms is a critical component of our national defense. Based on decades of military experience, our partners in the brief have concluded that the District of Columbia’s Gun Law directly interferes with the Congressionally mandated Civilian Marksmanship Program, which prepares citizens for more effective service in the military.

All of this is to say that we at AHSA, unlike the NRA, take a responsible approach to firearms policy. We believe that firearm rights do not reside within a vacuum and must be balanced with firearm civic responsibilities. That component has been missing from the pro-gun side, but it’s critical. Hunters and shooters understand and welcome their civic responsibilities. The Second Amendment does not prevent thoughtful public policies. In fact, we think good public policy is good for gun owners and ensures that all Americans can enjoy the benefits of this crucial and historic liberty. But, the NRA leadership won’t ever accept that premise because they can’t raise money from it. That’s one key difference between us. We actually put hunters, shooters and national defense first.

One last, but very important point, that distinguishes AHSA from the leaders of the NRA: our argument would not prevent the D.C. Council from enacting rationally-based regulations relating to possession, safety, and registration of firearms in the District. In fact, we firmly believe the District of Columbia has a responsibility to the public to do so.