Journals of the Continental Congress,
MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1783

...On the report of a committee, consisting of Mr. [Thomas] Fitzsimmons, Mr. [Richard] Peters and Mr. [Samuel] Holten, to whom was re-committed their report on a motion of Mr. [Samuel] Holten, respecting bonds given by commanders of private armed vessels:

Resolved, That theTreasurer of the United States Agent of Marine, for the time being be, and he is hereby authorised and directed, whensoever complaints are exhibited of public abuses or private injuries committed by the captains or commanders of any privateers or armed vessels sailing under the authority of the United States, to cause such legal measures for obtaining redress, by means of the bonds given on taking out commissions for such privateers or armed vessels, for any abuses or injuries contrary to their instructions, or in violation of the maritime ordinances of the United States, or the laws and customs of nations, as to justice appertains;

and upon measuring or receiving the penalty of the bonds after deducting the necessary charges to cause a distribution to the parties aggrieved at the time by the malversation of any such captain or commander, according to the injuries they may respectively have received, and the overplus (if any) be returned to captain or commander, or his sureties;

all prosecutions for private injuries upon said bonds to be at the risque and expence of the complainants, or the persons said to be aggrieved.

That the said treasurer of the U. S. cause the bonds before mentioned to be lodged in the Secretary's office of the respective states or other public office to which access may from time to time be had that in case in further injuries either of a public or private nature be committed than those complained of by the party applying in the first instance such farther measures may be taken thereupon as to right and justice appertain.¹

[Note 1: 1 This report, in the writing of Thomas FitzSimons, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 28, folio 183. A duplicate in the writing of Samuel Holten, except the last paragraph, which is in the writing of Richard Peters, is on folio 181.]

The Committee of the week [Mr. Eleazer McComb, Mr. John Montgomery and Mr. Gunning Bedford] report That the letter of 25th March 1783 from Mr. Du Radieu of Nantz with its enclosures, be referred to a special Committee....

And thus we find just how our RIGHT was erroneously placed under the supposed 'authority' of the Treasury Dept; by use of perversely applied precedence. It is obviously quite clear that the intent of the Congress was to govern the “armed vessels sailing under the authority of the United States “. And, this was done by use of "Commissions" or "Letters of Marque and Reprizal". Which has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the individual right and duty to Self-Preservation guaranteed to every citizen on American soil.

The above contention is proven beyond refutation here;

"Knowing of the war when she left Jamaica, & that our coast was lined with small French privateers, she armed for her defence, & took one of those commissions usually called letters of marque. She arrived here safely without having had any rencounter of any sort. Can it be necessary to say that a merchant vessel is not a privateer? That tho' she has arms to defend herself in time of war, in the course of her regular commerce, this no more makes her a privateer, than a husbandman following his plough, in time of war, with a knife or pistol in his pocket, is thereby made a soldier? The occupation of a privateer is attack and plunder, that of a merchant-vessel is commerce & self-preservation."

- Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 08/16/1793 [The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, Federal Edition. Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford].

Mr. Jefferson thusly makes the distinction quite clear. As to the difference between a commercial vessel or privateer. And a regular citizen, or as Mr. Jefferson referred; “a husbandman”, (a farmer, which were the greatest majority of Americans at that time). The difference is even further clarified by the following statement;

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? ... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

- Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

(Mr. Coxe was a prominent Philadelphian and political economist who was named assistant secretary of the treasury in 1790, commissioner of revenue in 1792, and purveyor of public supplies in 1803).

And Mr. Coxe was, most definitely, not alone in this view;

"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."

- James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792, (Signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice).

Based on all of the above, as well as quite a bit more readily available factual information. It can justly be held, with the utmost assurance, that all 'gun control'. As is presently and widely practised over arms in the hands of We The People of America. Is not only against the TRUE INTENT of the established law of our Constitution. But against the very laws held out as the reason for declaring our Independence, and forming the present Constitution. Which laws, as James Madison referred to in Federalist #43, are “the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God”. Or, in other words, “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be infringed” means PRECISELY that which is written. And, not only were the local, state and federal lawmakers expressly forbidden from enacting ANY 'gun control' laws. The courts were expressly charged to ensure that they didn't. To Wit;

"This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. . . . But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community....”

“...That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission....”

“...It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A CONSTITUTION is, in FACT, and MUST be regarded by the judges, as a FUNDAMENTAL law."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78

Do you understand that MAXIM your honors? The whole purpose of a Constitution is rule by FUNDAMENTAL LAW. Rather than by perversely applied 'stare decisis', (to stand by that which has been decided). Also formerly known as ARBITRARY RULE. Which thereby undermines the whole purpose in having a written Constitution. British 'gun control', arbitrary rule and taxes, were what caused the founders of this country to arise and fight a Revolutionary War.

Would strongly suggest that ALL of our public SERVANTS pay close attention to the following words;

"The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 46

Failure to heed Mr. Madison's advice, would by course of nature and reason, lead to We The People following Mr. Alexander Hamilton's;

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, (Notice the use of the word CITIZENS - NOT MILITIA!), without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance."

- Federalist #28, published in the Independent Journal on Friday, December 26, 1787