Update on Washington State Bills
 

There are now 2 bills up for consideration in Washington State:
HB 1243 and HB 2127
Links to each bill:
HB 1243:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...&year=2007

HB 2127:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...&year=2007

Summary: HB 1243 makes there be no crime to play online poker for recreational purposes. HB 2127 changes the felony part of the law into a misdemeanor.

After talking with lawmakers, it appears that HB 1243 is not going to get a chance because Representative Steve Conway (head of the Commerce and Labor committee) will not allow it to be discussed. HB 2127 (which was introduced much later than HB 1243) already has a hearing date set - Febuary 16th at 3pm. In my opinion, we should continue to push for HB 1243 - because it is the right law. However, we might just have to "take whatever we can get" on this front - which would be HB 2127.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

Should we try for the good option with a low chance of success - HB 1243?
Or take the reasonable option with a higher chance of success - HB 2127?

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

bump

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

I guess I would have to go with pushing for HB1243.

At least I won't be too disappointed with HB 2127. :-(

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

Are we not all poker players????

GAMBOOOL on 1243

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

I received a favorable response from my Representative - Brendan Williams (22nd Dist.) on 1243. He said that 1243 makes a great deal of sense and the law now is unenforceable. It wasn't enthusiastic, but it certainly was supportive of the bill.

How do we get through to Rep. Conway to get the bill a hearing?

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

Sent the following to each of my reps (and a slightly edited version for my Senator)-

[ QUOTE ]
Representative (Last Name)-
I am writing to ask that you do everything in your power to insure that HB 1243 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...&year=2007) is not only granted a hearing, but is passed by the House. It is legal to play poker in many locations around the state of Washington, and restricting adults from playing on the Internet in the privacy of their own homes is ridiculous, and a serious intrusion by the government. I view this as a key issue which will have a direct impact on how I vote in upcoming elections. I have been a lifelong Democrat, so it would pain me to vote otherwise, but having one of my favorite hobbies explicitly outlawed has had a direct impact on my quality of life.

Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure how much good it will do, but I feel better for having at least made an effort. I encourage everyone else to do the same; it takes less than 10 minutes.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should we try for the good option with a low chance of success - HB 1243?
Or take the reasonable option with a higher chance of success - HB 2127?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the information given, it doesn't look like this should phrased in terms of a choice. If you support 2127 there is no way to go back. Once you choose to compromise, the lawmakers will look for a way to compromise from your compromise.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
I received a favorable response from my Representative - Brendan Williams (22nd Dist.) on 1243. He said that 1243 makes a great deal of sense and the law now is unenforceable. It wasn't enthusiastic, but it certainly was supportive of the bill.

How do we get through to Rep. Conway to get the bill a hearing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes now the law is unenforcable No judge in the world will give me a felony charge and throw me in jail after coming home from Iraq twice over internet poker.

But with the new law he would have no problem fining me a 1000 bucks. We were better off with unenforcable.

I sent a washington senator a email about poker and he sent me a form letter about iraq. The seceratary must be on drugs.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

Anybody have an update on how the hearing went on 2/16? Anybody show up?

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

Not sure. There is a link to the Committee on the TVW Website, and I haven't listened to all of the audio, but the Event Title doesn't list this bill as one of the ones discussed.

Here's the link I've found to help folks keep updated.

http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archi...210&TYPE=A

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

Go to 2:24 and you will find the discussion on this.


Here's the link I've found to help folks keep updated.

http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archi...210&TYPE=A

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

FYI, this is at 2:24:00 (approximately) running until approximately 2:30:00, and not 0:02:24.

While the discussion regarded HB 2127, Strow presented some thoughts with the committee. Strow was asked regarding whether he thought a gross misdemeanor was too harsh a penalty, and responded that he thought that even a misdemeanor was too harsh.

Strow indicated a willingness to do a rewrite, and my take on it was that Strow was not willing to rewrite for a gross misdemeanor, although I think I misunderstand political speak from time to time; one of the speakers who followed seemed excited about the rewrite to a "gross misdemeanor". [EDIT: I did appear to misinterpret this; see below.]

EDIT: Not so fast!! HB2320 made it past a first hearing that would make recreational online gambling a <u>gross</u> misdemeanor. The vote was 5-3 in favor, and was scheduled for a second hearing on the 28th.

Check the approximately 36 minute mark here:
http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archi...360&amp;TYPE=A
for audio on the rolecall.

Check http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2007#documents to follow this bill.

This is the substitute bill, not the original bill which did not have the "gross misdemeanor" penalty, but the "misdemeanor" penalty instead.

A basic summary of the audio is here:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...e/2320.HBR.pdf

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

Poker is!!! a game of skill and not of luck if you play longterm, so absolutly: HB 1243

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

so this is good (better?), right?

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
Summary: HB 1243 makes there be no crime to play online poker for recreational purposes. HB 2127 changes the felony part of the law into a misdemeanor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Passing HB 2127 is actually the worst possible outcome. I would strongly prefer that nothing pass.

Right now the felony aspect of Washington law is a major embarrassment. It is so unreasonable it makes opponents of internet gaming look really bad. As long as playing internet poker is a felony, repeal bills like HB 1243 are going to keep coming up. Eventually Washington could stop being a prohibition state.

HB 2127 would solve our opponents' political problem. Internet poker would remain a misdemeanor forever. That's a tragedy because Washington is by far the best state to use for building a UIGEA prosecution against a pure poker room.

Who cares whether playing online poker is a felony or merely a serious misdemeanor? It's not like anyone is actually going to be prosecuted. Clearly the state has no intention of enforcing this law.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
HB 2127 would solve our opponents' political problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably, although I don't know if they really face severe problems in the first place. While I would also rather see it remain a felony for exactly the reasons you state, I do foresee the possibility that HB2320 completely backfires.

When the Washington State Legislature passed their bill last fall, many legislators could claim that they didn't recognize the scope of the bill that they had passed. Keep in mind that the bill they passed last year is the same one that got Negreanu's column removed from the Seattle Times.

So in response to this, in response to the idea that they went too far, they give... just the tiniest little bit back? This is almost worse than the original bill, in that now they're acknowledging that recreational play shouldn't be considered under the previous statutes, but still punishable by gross misdemeanor penalties?

With this bill, and if there were a politically active pushback in the state of Washington, this bill could actually prove to be even more of a catalyst for further action.

Since that likely isn't the case, it probably really doesn't matter one way or the other.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

i think the enforcement will be the same, i'd rather have it be a misdemeanor than a felony for obvious reasons.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

I think that enforcement will stay the same, also, but I believe that if this bill passes, the government will think they've done their part.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Summary: HB 1243 makes there be no crime to play online poker for recreational purposes. HB 2127 changes the felony part of the law into a misdemeanor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Passing HB 2127 is actually the worst possible outcome. I would strongly prefer that nothing pass.

Right now the felony aspect of Washington law is a major embarrassment. It is so unreasonable it makes opponents of internet gaming look really bad. As long as playing internet poker is a felony, repeal bills like HB 1243 are going to keep coming up. Eventually Washington could stop being a prohibition state.

HB 2127 would solve our opponents' political problem. Internet poker would remain a misdemeanor forever. That's a tragedy because Washington is by far the best state to use for building a UIGEA prosecution against a pure poker room.

Who cares whether playing online poker is a felony or merely a serious misdemeanor? It's not like anyone is actually going to be prosecuted. Clearly the state has no intention of enforcing this law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This entire thread seems to be full of recreational online poker players who think it's ok for it to be a felony to play poker online professionally. Am I missing something? Because as far as I can tell, the bill you're calling 'the solution' is the worst possible outcome for the same reason that you dislike the alternative: If playing 'recreationally' is made legal, nobody will repeal the felony law for 'professional' poker players.

Playing poker is playing poker. It shouldn't be legal if you suck and illegal if you're good.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
This entire thread seems to be full of recreational online poker players who think it's ok for it to be a felony to play poker online professionally. Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure are.

In principle, I agree with you, but the professional battle is a larger one, because professional gambling is and has been illegal in the state of Washington regardless of whether you gamble on the internet or not, and has been since 1994, which means that it frankly isn't a pressing issue or particularly newsworthy.

The relevant statutes regarding this are RCW 9.46.220 "Professional gambling in the first degree.", RCW 9.46.221 "Professional gambling in the second degree.", and RCW 9.46.222 "Professional gambling in the third degree.".

Chapter 9.46 of the RCW in general goes into great detail about defining the different terms (such as "What is professional gambling?")

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This entire thread seems to be full of recreational online poker players who think it's ok for it to be a felony to play poker online professionally. Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure are.

In principle, I agree with you, but the professional battle is a larger one, because professional gambling is and has been illegal in the state of Washington regardless of whether you gamble on the internet or not, and has been since 1994, which means that it frankly isn't a pressing issue or particularly newsworthy.

The relevant statutes regarding this are RCW 9.46.220 "Professional gambling in the first degree.", RCW 9.46.221 "Professional gambling in the second degree.", and RCW 9.46.222 "Professional gambling in the third degree.".

Chapter 9.46 of the RCW in general goes into great detail about defining the different terms (such as "What is professional gambling?")

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not missing that, I've read those laws. The first degree and second degree clearly do not apply to a single individual playing online poker. The third degree is not a felony, and it is also not clear to me that it applies to the case of a single individual playing online poker profesionally, 'making', not 'taking' bets, and not being either an empolyee or owner in a 'gambling operation'. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't offer much of a worthwhile opinion beyond offering my skepticism.

Even if being an online poker professional is decided by the courts to be a professional gambling in the third degree, it's still a gross misdemeanor, not a felony. A big difference. Which means that the solution that's being pimped as 'the best outcome' still leaves online professionals hanging, exposed to felony charges. In fact, I would guess they'd be more likely to be charged, since they wouldn't be able to create a media uproar by pointing out that the grandmother playing for pennies could be charged with the same crime.

The proposed 'best solution' for all online poker players is nothing of the sort. The better option for online professionals, right now, is a rollback to make all offenses misdemeanors and keep professional playing on an equal legal footing with recreational playing.

Any poll that represents the recreational defense bill as clearly the best option for all of us is misleading and irresponsible.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not missing that, I've read those laws. The first degree and second degree clearly do not apply to a single individual playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I've interpreted those laws differently. For instance, from the "Professional gambling in the first degree statute":

(1) A person is guilty of professional gambling in the first degree if he or she engages in, or knowingly causes, aids, abets, or conspires with another to engage in professional gambling as defined in this chapter, and:

(a) Acts in concert with or conspires with five or more people; or

(b) Personally accepts wagers exceeding five thousand dollars during any thirty-day period on future contingent events; or

(c) The operation for whom the person works, or with which the person is involved, accepts wagers exceeding five thousand dollars during any thirty-day period on future contingent events; or

(d) Operates, manages, or profits from the operation of a premises or location where persons are charged a fee to participate in card games, lotteries, or other gambling activities that are not authorized by this chapter or licensed by the commission.

I'm pretty sure that provision (d) here would apply to online gambling. By participating in online gambling as a professional, you profit from the operation of a location where persons are charged [i.e. the rake] to participate in card games... that are not authorized by this chapter [social card games have to be either as a commercial stimulant for other businesses (RCW 9.46.0325) or as part of a charitable function (RCW 9.46.0356), neither of which technically applies to online gambling] or licensed by the commission (which online gambling is not, and which the Gambling Commission has actually been fighting against).

And professional gambling in the first degree is a Class B Felony.

I am also not a lawyer, but the language seemed relatively clear to me, so I'd be interested to see how you've interpreted that statute differently.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not missing that, I've read those laws. The first degree and second degree clearly do not apply to a single individual playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I've interpreted those laws differently. For instance, from the "Professional gambling in the first degree statute":

(1) A person is guilty of professional gambling in the first degree if he or she engages in, or knowingly causes, aids, abets, or conspires with another to engage in professional gambling as defined in this chapter, and:

(a) Acts in concert with or conspires with five or more people; or

(b) Personally accepts wagers exceeding five thousand dollars during any thirty-day period on future contingent events; or

(c) The operation for whom the person works, or with which the person is involved, accepts wagers exceeding five thousand dollars during any thirty-day period on future contingent events; or

(d) Operates, manages, or profits from the operation of a premises or location where persons are charged a fee to participate in card games, lotteries, or other gambling activities that are not authorized by this chapter or licensed by the commission.

I'm pretty sure that provision (d) here would apply to online gambling. By participating in online gambling as a professional, you profit from the operation of a location where persons are charged [i.e. the rake] to participate in card games... that are not authorized by this chapter [social card games have to be either as a commercial stimulant for other businesses (RCW 9.46.0325) or as part of a charitable function (RCW 9.46.0356), neither of which technically applies to online gambling] or licensed by the commission (which online gambling is not, and which the Gambling Commission has actually been fighting against).

And professional gambling in the first degree is a Class B Felony.

I am also not a lawyer, but the language seemed relatively clear to me, so I'd be interested to see how you've interpreted that statute differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

The person who profits from the rake is the person who profits from the operation of the facility. The person who plays poker professionally is not profitting from the operation of the facility. They have no stake in the operation of the facility and get no cut of the rake, which is paid in compensation for operation of the facility. It's extremely clearcut to me that this does not apply to gamblers, but to those running the game or employed by them. A player in the game has no relation whatsoever to its operation.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

I see where you're coming from now, but I'm still not sure I agree. How can you profit from poker, if you're not profiting from the existence of the premises? If the location for playing poker did not exist, you would not be making a profit from that location.

But presuming your interpretation for a moment: would rakeback then qualify as taking a share?

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
(d) Operates, manages, or profits from the operation of a premises or location where persons are charged a fee to participate in card games, lotteries, or other gambling activities that are not authorized by this chapter or licensed by the commission.[/i]

[/ QUOTE ]
The operative phrase here is "operates, manages or profits from the operation of a premises." All three of these statues have to do with running a gambling operation, not participating in one as as player.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

I live in Washington. I wrote and rewrote about 20 different state legislators last spring when they were contemplating passage of SB6613, and wrote them again after they passed it. I just wrote them all again yesterday asking if indeed anyone has been charged or prosecuted under RCW 9.46.240, the law that SB6613 became.

The thing that really irks me about this law is that all the other Class C felonies in Washington are crimes where other human beings are directly victimized -- either hurting them personally, or by depriving them of their property or rights in some manner.

Regarding the two new bills, I see no reason why they need to be mutually exclusive. Why can't online poker be completely decriminalized, and all other forms be reduced to misdemeanors? Personally, I would prefer all forms of online gaming to be legal, regulated and taxed, but if they feel compelled to punish some "gambling heathens," let it be online video slot players for a misdemeanor.

One other thing to note about the passage of the original law: It was originally sponsored by five Democrats. I was sorely disappointed by this. I did extensive research on the five sponsors, including multiyear looks into their campaign donors at www.followthemoney.org. They are 100% tools of the Indian gaming industry in Washington. They even passed a law that said you can't lobby in Washington unless you have a gaming license in Washington, specifically to exclude online gaming from exerting any influence in our state.

So it doesn't matter who you are -- red, blue or green -- if your bread is buttered by B&amp;Ms, you're no friend of ours.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
I live in Washington. I wrote and rewrote about 20 different state legislators last spring when they were contemplating passage of SB6613, and wrote them again after they passed it. I just wrote them all again yesterday asking if indeed anyone has been charged or prosecuted under RCW 9.46.240, the law that SB6613 became.

The thing that really irks me about this law is that all the other Class C felonies in Washington are crimes where other human beings are directly victimized -- either hurting them personally, or by depriving them of their property or rights in some manner.

Regarding the two new bills, I see no reason why they need to be mutually exclusive. Why can't online poker be completely decriminalized, and all other forms be reduced to misdemeanors? Personally, I would prefer all forms of online gaming to be legal, regulated and taxed, but if they feel compelled to punish some "gambling heathens," let it be online video slot players for a misdemeanor.

One other thing to note about the passage of the original law: It was originally sponsored by five Democrats. I was sorely disappointed by this. I did extensive research on the five sponsors, including multiyear looks into their campaign donors at www.followthemoney.org. They are 100% tools of the Indian gaming industry in Washington. They even passed a law that said you can't lobby in Washington unless you have a gaming license in Washington, specifically to exclude online gaming from exerting any influence in our state.

So it doesn't matter who you are -- red, blue or green -- if your bread is buttered by B&amp;Ms, you're no friend of ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

the government is a business like any other (only where bribes are more legal)

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

A point no one has raised yet, define "playing poker recreationally". Are they going to hunt down all the multitabling pros...I'm assuming no.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
the government is a business like any other (only where bribes are more legal)

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll appreciate my old PokerRoom profile, particularly the last paragraph. I last updated it when PokerRoom gave US players the boot. (And yes, I was very, very bitter.)

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the government is a business like any other (only where bribes are more legal)

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll appreciate my old PokerRoom profile, particularly the last paragraph. I last updated it when PokerRoom gave US players the boot. (And yes, I was very, very bitter.)

[/ QUOTE ]

unfortunately the only way we can convince them that keeping poker around is in their best interest is to make it be in their best interest....

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
I see where you're coming from now, but I'm still not sure I agree. How can you profit from poker, if you're not profiting from the existence of the premises? If the location for playing poker did not exist, you would not be making a profit from that location.

But presuming your interpretation for a moment: would rakeback then qualify as taking a share?

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone else has already pointed out, the key word here is 'operation', and I think you're misinterpreting it. Here are the definitions from dictionary.com of operate that I think apply the best here:

11. to put or keep (a factory, industrial system, ranch, etc.) working or in operation: to operate a coal mine.
12. to bring about, effect, or produce, as by action or the exertion of force or influence.

Playing in a game does not constitute having any interest in its operation nor profitting from its operation. As I said before, I'm not a laywer, and this obviously does not constitute legal advice.

I do believe that the one class of people they would consider prosecuting are rakeback providers. In fact, there was a well-read newspaper story a long while back about the potential prosecution of one person in Bellingham(?) who had an operation like that. I think he ended up just having to shut it down and didn't get prosecuted, but I hesitate to even offer that much because my memory of the details involved is very poor.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
I live in Washington. I wrote and rewrote about 20 different state legislators last spring when they were contemplating passage of SB6613, and wrote them again after they passed it. I just wrote them all again yesterday asking if indeed anyone has been charged or prosecuted under RCW 9.46.240, the law that SB6613 became.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so you seem well informed, or at least moreso than me. So let me ask: Are you aware of any effective washington based organization that's trying to effect change in this area? I'd be willing to contribute money... and more importantly, time... to this cause. If there's nothing established yet, we may be at the point where we need to start something. I've been so reluctant to get involved in initiating something like this because I so abhor the current state of politics but if nobody else is going to do it...it does need to be done.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

I'm trying to contact Rep. Chris Strow, the sponsor of the bill, about ways we can help. I am similarly interested in volunteering any assistance. I'll let you know if he says help is welcome/needed.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to contact Rep. Chris Strow, the sponsor of the bill, about ways we can help. I am similarly interested in volunteering any assistance. I'll let you know if he says help is welcome/needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstand me -- the only thing I would do with regard to Mr. Strow's bill is give him a piece of my mind about the stupidity of separating recreational and professional online poker playing in the eyes of the law. I'd be interested in supporting efforts to bring about logical and balanced changes to the law.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

The substitute bill, HB 2320 has now had an amendment proposed on the floor by one of the co-sponsors, Rep. Appleton to change the penalty from a gross misdemeanor down to a civil infraction level 3 - i.e., no jail, $50 fine.

I can't tell the status, but this is *definitely* a strong positive move regardless of the "professional" distinction debate and deserves support. Here's a link:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summ...&amp;year=2007

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
The substitute bill, HB 2320 has now had an amendment proposed on the floor by one of the co-sponsors, Rep. Appleton to change the penalty from a gross misdemeanor down to a civil infraction level 3 - i.e., no jail, $50 fine.

I can't tell the status, but this is *definitely* a strong positive move regardless of the "professional" distinction debate and deserves support. Here's a link:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summ...&amp;year=2007

[/ QUOTE ]

no,it definitely doesn't deserve support. If this passes, there is pretty much zero chance the issue will be taken up again, and professionals who play online will be stuck exposed to felony charges.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The substitute bill, HB 2320 has now had an amendment proposed on the floor by one of the co-sponsors, Rep. Appleton to change the penalty from a gross misdemeanor down to a civil infraction level 3 - i.e., no jail, $50 fine.

I can't tell the status, but this is *definitely* a strong positive move regardless of the "professional" distinction debate and deserves support. Here's a link:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summ...&amp;year=2007

[/ QUOTE ]

no,it definitely doesn't deserve support. If this passes, there is pretty much zero chance the issue will be taken up again, and professionals who play online will be stuck exposed to felony charges.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? passing a bill that changes the charge from felony to civil infraction will leave pros exposed to felony charges? how does this work?

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

[ QUOTE ]

??? passing a bill that changes the charge from felony to civil infraction will leave pros exposed to felony charges? how does this work?

[/ QUOTE ]

the existing law makes it a felony for everyone to play. There are currently multiple bills being debated to 'fix' the first bill which more and more lawmakers are now seeing as a mistake. Whichever bill is chosen will likely be the end of the matter, at least for a long while. Whatever 'fixes' that are left out of the bill that passes (if any) during this push are unlikely to be passed in the near future, if ever.

The vast majority of washington state poker players are recreational, and if those on this forum are any indication, they're plenty eager to throw the professionals under the bus if it saves their own skin.

Re: Update on Washington State Bills
 

I just received this e-mail response from Rep. Sherry Appleton, one of the sponsors of HB 2320 and the author of the amendment to change the penalty from a misdemeanor to a class 3 civil infraction (maximium penalty $50).

[ QUOTE ]
Dear x,

We could not get the bill voted on. I am sorry but we will try again next session - I really hate that we passed that bill last year - a little ridiculous. Thanks and it will include my amendment next year.

Sherry

________________________________

From: xxxx
Sent: Mon 3/19/2007 4:47 PM
To: Appleton, Rep. Sherry
Subject: HB 2320 - Reducing the penalty for internet gambling



Dear Rep. Appleton,

I'm hoping you can give me an update on the status of this bill. As a Washington state resident who
used to enjoy online poker (until the passage of the bill last year that made it a felony) I greatly
appreciate your efforts to pass this bill. Can you tell me when it might come to a vote? Will it
include your amendment, changing the penalty from a misdemeanor to a class 3 civil infraction?

Thanks for your time,

x

[/ QUOTE ]

From my understanding of the WA legislative calendar, next session means next January [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]