PRO SE PMA Forum - By using our website and services, you confirm your understanding of and agreement to our Terms of Service.

Private Membership Associations (PMAs) represent a unique structure that has played a significant role in the history of the Western world and continues to hold relevance in contemporary legal discussions. Understanding their historical context and legal distinctions is crucial for anyone with an interest in law and governance.

Historically, the concept of PMAs can be traced back to times when kings and queens wielded absolute power. In these ancient systems, the monarch's word was law, and they possessed the authority to grant privileges and powers to whomever they chose. As kingdoms expanded, the delegation of power became necessary, leading to the codification of private membership organizations.

One prominent example is the Hudson Bay Company, a PMA authorized by the King of England to conduct business in a territory known as Upper Canada. This company was granted extensive jurisdiction to operate in the area, highlighting the significant power that could be vested in such associations. The King essentially authorized this private company to transform wild lands into profitable enterprises. Their initial focus was on the fur trade, where they organized campaigns to acquire furs from frontiersmen.

The authority granted to these early PMAs stemmed from a "crown grant," a designation from the monarchy. This historical context is essential for grasping the fundamental nature of PMAs: they originate from a system where authority is bestowed upon select groups, setting them apart from the general populace.
As societies transitioned from kingdoms to nation-states, the concept of PMAs evolved. While the underlying principle of selective association remained, these organizations adapted to fit within the framework of emerging legal systems.

In the modern era, PMAs manifest in various forms, often operating in plain sight. Political parties in the United States, such as the Republicans and Democrats, function as private membership associations. These parties possess the autonomy to determine their members and can expel individuals who do not align with their ideologies. This exemplifies the inherent right of voluntary association and disassociation that defines PMAs.

This principle of voluntary association has been tested in legal arenas. In Canada, for instance, the courts have affirmed the right of political parties to exclude members, underscoring the legal recognition of PMAs' autonomy in dictating their membership.
The concept of PMAs intersects with legal history in other ways as well. During Prohibition in the United States, when the sale of alcohol was federally banned, private membership associations provided a loophole. Bars operating as PMAs could legally serve alcohol to their members, highlighting how these associations can function outside the strictures of general laws.

Beyond the context of alcohol consumption, PMAs have played a role in social stratification. Exclusive social clubs, such as some golf clubs, operate as PMAs, often with high membership fees that serve to limit access to affluent individuals. Historically, some of these clubs also imposed restrictions based on race, demonstrating how PMAs can be used to reinforce social hierarchies.

The history of PMAs is replete with examples of secret societies and exclusive organizations. From the Hellfire Club, known for its association with the aristocracy and alleged licentious activities, to scientific societies with strict bloodline requirements for membership, PMAs have often served as enclaves for the elite.
Even early universities and law societies functioned as PMAs, with entry often restricted to those with the "proper bloodlines" or those who could demonstrate allegiance to the established order. The Bar, the professional association for lawyers, has roots in these early law societies, illustrating the enduring influence of the PMA concept in legal professions.

In contemporary times, the legal framework surrounding PMAs can be complex.

Many individuals attempting to establish PMAs today encounter legal challenges by relying on statutory laws rather than adhering to the fundamental principles of lawfulness.