Banned Already?

[DMoogle]

So is this bill in effect? Would I be breaking the law if I logged on right now and played? If not, when does it go into effect?

[Indiana]

[ QUOTE ]
So is this bill in effect? Would I be breaking the law if I logged on right now and played? If not, when does it go into effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It must go through the Senate first.

Indy

[momo24]

It's not in effect. It's only passed the house; still needs to pass the senate and be signed by the prez.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So is this bill in effect? Would I be breaking the law if I logged on right now and played? If not, when does it go into effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It must go through the Senate first.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

When does the Senate get it? I can't seem to find any info in that regard.

[Indiana]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So is this bill in effect? Would I be breaking the law if I logged on right now and played? If not, when does it go into effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It must go through the Senate first.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

When does the Senate get it? I can't seem to find any info in that regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't know yet.

Indy

[mattnxtc]

I believe the plan that some dems are gonna use is to stall it out this session which would force them to start all over again in the House next year

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So is this bill in effect? Would I be breaking the law if I logged on right now and played? If not, when does it go into effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It must go through the Senate first.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

When does the Senate get it? I can't seem to find any info in that regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

The long and short of it is: when they decide to take it up.

[antneye]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the plan that some dems are gonna use is to stall it out this session which would force them to start all over again in the House next year

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true that it would have to be passed by the house a second time? It would make more sense that it is carried over as "old business" but whoever said our government made sense.

[Berge20]

Congressional sessions are two years(2004-2006), so all unfinished business of the 109th Congress will go bye-bye when it adjourns.

[mattnxtc]

and that ends in just a couple months..not in december

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the plan that some dems are gonna use is to stall it out this session which would force them to start all over again in the House next year

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true that it would have to be passed by the house a second time? It would make more sense that it is carried over as "old business" but whoever said our government made sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theoretically, the new session could consist of 435 new House members and 33 new Senators -- therefore, I think it makes more sense that unfinished legislation doesn't 'carry over' to the next session.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
and that ends in just a couple months..not in december

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they're targeted to adjourn Oct. 6th, plus they're on vacation for most of the rest of the summer. Keep your fingers crossed Sen. Kyl doesn't fast track it.

[mattnxtc]

i think he can try but from what i hear they will stop him just for spite.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
i think he can try but from what i hear they will stop him just for spite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunately or unfortunately, I think the Democratic Party's interest in stopping Sen. Kyl from fast tracking this has much more to do with political expediancy (that is, preventing him from having a legislative victory in the middle of an election year, where the Democratic challenger is starting to gain some momentum), rather than opposing Kyl out of spite or philosophical alignment with the internet poker playing community.

Clearly Sen. Kyl should be every poker player's #1 enemy.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly Sen. Kyl should be every poker player's #1 enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly that clear, perhaps a small annoyance to internet poker players that are winners, this is clearly a very small percentage of the population. I would suggest that he is less evil than any Democrat who wishes to raise Federal taxes or minimum wage laws.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly Sen. Kyl should be every poker player's #1 enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly that clear, perhaps a small annoyance to internet poker players that are winners, this is clearly a very small percentage of the population. I would suggest that he is less evil than any Democrat who wishes to raise Federal taxes or minimum wage laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I happen to be in that population, so he's my #1 enemy. Perhaps if I were to join ranks with the FreeRepublic community, I'd look upon him differently. But since I enjoy playing poker in the internet, he's my #1 enemy. I don't think it's unreasonable to claim he's the #1 enemy of 99% of the 2p2 community, but I'm certain there are at least a few other wingnuts on this board, so rest assured you're not alone in your adoration for a guy who's attempting to destroy our favorite pastime and/or livelihood.

[Pot-A]

I'm starting to wonder if they don't do this just to raise money for their campaigns. Introduce a bill like this, Party gives lots of money to the other side to stall it. Then the B&M casinos give you lots of money to push it through. Have it die in one of the houses of Congress, lather, rinse, repeat. As long as they don't actually pass it they can get money from both sides every election cycle.

If I'm right, the Senate won't take it up or it will die in committee.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and that ends in just a couple months..not in december

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they're targeted to adjourn Oct. 6th, plus they're on vacation for most of the rest of the summer. Keep your fingers crossed Sen. Kyl doesn't fast track it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's almost a 100% certainty that there will be a lame duck session of Congress AFTER the election. They will take some time off to campaign beginning the last week of September/first week of October, but they will likely be back some time after election day.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's unreasonable to claim he's the #1 enemy of 99% of the 2p2 community

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't either, inaccurate, and full of hyperbole but not unreasonable for you to make such a claim. In case you find 99% of the population that plays any game of any kind anywhere in real life or on the web where 99% of them win I'd like to meet the 1% of the losers who are supporting them. It is doubtful than more than 10% of the posters on these forums are long term online or B&M winners.

I never said he should be your friend but hardly Public Enemy number One. Many of us play B&M poker as much or more than online, why should people in that category care? A serious question?

[Leavenfish]

Spend less time playing poker and more time learning how the world works. Any 6th grader 'should' know the process of a bill becoming a law.

Sorry to sound snide, not really even directed at your ...but there is a lot of illiteracy floating to the top concerning these threads.

---Leavenfish

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
Many of us play B&M poker as much or more than online, why should people in that category care? A serious question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there are a lot of players that make their money online and have no other skill/source of income. I don't know how many will go play in B&M, but some will. I would consider it, and while live is different then online, it would be foolish to believe that long term winners online won't adapt and become good live players eventually.

Additionally, online poker creates fish and introduces them to the game. Obviously, these people are more likely them average to play live. Of course if online poker is banned there might be some more fish in B&M too, but I doubt it will be enough to compensate because sharks will move or travel to be closer to a card room. If online poker is banned, B&M games will get tougher possibly much tougher especially at mid/high limits.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said he should be your friend but hardly Public Enemy number One. Many of us play B&M poker as much or more than online, why should people in that category care? A serious question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Name the one person in the world who presents the greatest threat to the viability and profitability of the game of poker; I think it's Sen. Kyl, and I don't think it's close. Feel free to name someone else, but I suspect the potential damage Kyl can do (either by fast tracking HR 4411, or through making sure similar legislation arises during the next session) is far, far greater than anyone else. The B&M community should feel threatened for exactly the reasons listed in the above post -- the online game has made B&M poker all that more profitable.

I didn't say 'Public Enemy #1" -- I said "poker player's number one enemy", and I stand by that. Unfortunately, a vast majority of the public likely doesn't give a hoot about this bill.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Name the one person in the world who presents the greatest threat to the viability and profitability of the game of poker;

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, Mike the Mouth, IMHO he is terrible for B&M poker. I suppose my problem with your perspective is that you continue to group online poker players with B&M poker players. As primarily a B&M player myself I think banning internet poker would be beneficial to me personally. Another poster above thinks my reasoning is incorrect and all the big bad (read: too lazy to leave their apartment) internet poker sharks will come swallow me up like a fish. I think the opposite, we may have had just enough online poker to have created a new generation of B&M poker fish and now it is time to sterilize the breed. Now I am not going to lobby against internet poker nor encourage my Senators to vote for any such proposed legislation. I just think for me it would be +EV if the internet poker players had to come to a B&M to play poker. Again I may be mistaken but I doubt the legislation will ever become law and this has just been an interesting intellectual discussion.

[Machinehead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly Sen. Kyl should be every poker player's #1 enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly that clear, perhaps a small annoyance to internet poker players that are winners, this is clearly a very small percentage of the population. I would suggest that he is less evil than any Democrat who wishes to raise Federal taxes or minimum wage laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't he be an enemy to the players who lose money? Just because they don't have a long term winning % means they shouldn't care if their right to play is violated? I don't understand this point of view at all. This guy shouldn't be poker player's #1 enemy, he should be America's #1 enemy for reducing our freedoms to get reelected.

[sweetjazz]

No, I don't want your business and from this moment you're banned from the store, you're banned!

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
So is this bill in effect? Would I be breaking the law if I logged on right now and played? If not, when does it go into effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's this great show called School House Rock that should explain everything you need to know.

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't want your business and from this moment you're banned from the store, you're banned!

[/ QUOTE ]

But where will I get fruit?

[knicknut]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So is this bill in effect? Would I be breaking the law if I logged on right now and played? If not, when does it go into effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's this great show called School House Rock that should explain everything you need to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

.| |' The rich man pays a lobbyist, the lobbyist pays the senator... .| |'

[cottonmather0]

Well, here's the deal. Online gambling and poker is already illegal, according to just about any judge, prosecutor, or lawyer you ask. The new bill just clarifies some of the terminology since the internet wasn't around back in the days of Al Capone or whenever the first law was passed and it also adds certain banking prohibitions as well (much like what the New York AG already did a couple of years ago), since credit cards weren't around back then, either.

I've been playing online for a couple of years now, but it wasn't because I was under any foolish misconception that it was legal, only that with so many people doing it for much higher stakes than me (literally, my favorite game is 1c/2c Omaha on P-Stars) it is unlikely that I would ever get in any kind of trouble for it. And I think that probably applies to most people these days - unless you are gambling thousands of dollars a month online, the government probably isn't going to come after you because there simply aren't enough resources to enforce the law. Most likely, if the government ever did decide to start enforcing these laws, there would be a general "amnesty" announced and then the sites would start being monitored and only the people who kept playing after the "we're really serious now" announcement would likely ever get a letter in the mail or a visit from a federal agent. I think that the new law, in making the definitions more precise and taking away some of the more common defenses (rationalizations, really) that people use, is the beginning of that "we're really serious" process. Once this new law passes (and don't kid yourself, eventually, someday, maybe not this year, but eventually, it will) they are probably going to begin holding ISP's responsible for aiding and abetting a felony by not blocking the sites and then even if you wanted to break the law and play online it will be much harder to play.

I know I'm kind of long-winded here, but the short answer is that yes, internet poker is already considered to be illegeal by a vast majority of the legal community, the laws just haven't been enforced yet to a great degree. This new bill doesn't change anything with regards to the legality, it just clarifies things and will make it easier to enforce the law once the feds finally do decide to start prosecuting online poker players.

Feel free to disagree or tell me I am full of sh*t, but the facts are the facts: it's an election year, the b&m casinos are lobbying their butts off because they have a massive interest in squashing the competition (if they can't get a piece of the pie themselves), and this country has always had quite a puritan streak when it comes to gambling. I personally don't think internet poker should be illegal - like recreational drug use, it could be regulated and become a major source of tax revenue - but that doesn't change the fact that within the next 2-3 you will be risking arrest if you logon to PS or PP or Bodog or whatever. It's gonna happen and there is no amount of lobbying or protesting or holding your breath that is going to stop it.

A lot of people had very principled arguments in favor of free music downloads, too, and never believed that people might be held legally liable for using Napster, either, and we all know how that turned out. It happened then and it's eventually going to happen to online poker.

With regards to the original question about the legislative process, for chrissakes go back to 8th grade civics class. In its most simplified form:

1.) House (or Senate) gets an idea and passes a bill
2.) The other house passes its own version of the bill
3.) A committee of members from both houses gets together and drafts a combined version of the bill
4.) Each house votes on the new bill (or proposes changes but the rules vary and are complicated)
5.) If both houses pass the final combined version, then the bill is sent to the president for his signature
6.) If he signs it, then it's a law. If he doesn't then it's not a law (yet)

We're only at step #1, so no, the new bill is nowhere near becoming a law.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to disagree or tell me I am full of sh*t, but the facts are the facts: it's an election year, the b&m casinos are lobbying their butts off because they have a massive interest in squashing the competition (if they can't get a piece of the pie themselves), and this country has always had quite a puritan streak when it comes to gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're full of sh*t /images/graemlins/smile.gif; the bold is patently not true. The B&M industry, if anything, is lobbying against this bill, and supports the passage of another piece of legislation (which their lobbyists did have a hand in authoring) that maintains the status quo. But since you're only about the 15th poster to say this (this = B&M industry is behind HR 4411), I'll generally assume it's a common misconception and we'll move on from here. But seriously, the B&M industry is not lobbying for the passage of HR 4411 -- they don't have a hand in it, it's not some kind of ploy of theirs, and they're not trying to squash the competition. If anything, the B&M industry is a potential ally in the battle to make internet poker legal -- or at least ensure the current laws are neither strengthened or enforced.

FWIW, I agree a majority of the country has an inexplicable Puritanical attitude towards gaming, and this certainly effected much of the political calculations that were behind yesterday's vote, i.e., many House members didn't want to oppose the bill, then, this fall, have their opponents running the obligatory "Congressman XYZ voted to allow gambling into your home, where your children are!" ad.

[cottonmather0]

Fair enough, DVaut, I might be wrong about them being for the bill, but I would definitely say that the B&M are not for maintaining the status quo - read any comment from an industry exec and they'll say that online gambling is the competition and potentially taking away from their profits and maybe, just maybe, it would be nice for Congress to clarify the law so that the upstanding public corporations like the Harrah's and MGM's of the world could either legally get a piece of the action, too, or quit losing potential shareholder value to these shady guys in Costa Rica and Ireland. All of the gambling sites are offshore for a reason and the B&M's have no online presence whatsoever in the US and that's because it's against the law in the US to make or take wagers over a phone line. There very well may not be active lobbying in favor of the bill and I may indeed be wrong about that assertion (my bad), but I doubt anyone in Las Vegas (relatively speaking) is going to be crying if all of a sudden the B&M's are once again the only legal games around. That's just good business.