We have them today too, they're called "gangs".

Flame » in reply to Private militias have existed as well.

ER — 6/27/2008 4:24:27 AM (archived)

A benefactor might equip a regiment to serve under lawful military command by a state authority, but the legal status of private armies is, at best, dubious. In maritime law, which I am more familiar with, private men of war could be fitted out to prey on enemy shipping in wartime, but they were protected by official government documents called "Letters of Marque" which gave them the status of legal combatants. If you didn't have one you were considered a pirate without POW rights and could be hung on sight by anyone who caught you.

The whole thread (17 posts)

Do we have a constitutional scholar, or colonial historian, in the house? - ER - 6/27/2008 2:21:11 AM
- American colonists versus the Crown - E.P. - 7/3/2008 9:48:41 PM
- Some information - TB - 6/27/2008 3:56:39 AM
- I'm not constitutional scholar but I can read - Eri - 6/27/2008 3:11:47 AM
  - If that's what it meant - Lee - 6/27/2008 3:26:01 AM
    - What the founding fathers wanted doesn't matter. - ER - 6/27/2008 3:59:07 AM
      - Private militias have existed as well. - Lee - 6/27/2008 4:07:44 AM
        
        We have them today too, they're called "gangs". - ER - 6/27/2008 4:24:27 AM
        
        And "Blackwater" - Robert - 6/27/2008 4:44:10 AM
        
        I wouldn't worry about it too much. - Lee - 6/27/2008 4:28:30 AM
- The court did not consider it the "key phrase". - RobVG - 6/27/2008 2:57:48 AM
  - The Second Amendment says no such thing. - ER - 6/27/2008 3:30:15 AM
    - Clarification. - ER - 6/27/2008 3:39:41 AM
      - whatever the Supreme Court says it is - FrankC - 6/27/2008 4:46:06 AM
      - If that's the case - Lee - 6/27/2008 3:43:32 AM
        
        Wrong again. - ER - 6/27/2008 4:14:24 AM
        
        That's what I said. - Lee - 6/27/2008 4:25:27 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Flame

The whole thread (17 posts)