Re: To answer your hypothetical question, try ACLU v Gonzales.
I'd like to see the actual statement of that Missouri AG too, are you certain he was specifically referring to PLAYING poker on the internet? I doubt it, he was probably referring to laws that forbid runnning an unlicensed casino in Missouri. And even if he believes that law applies to the internet (Missouri gambling laws do not mention the internet at all) this is a highly dubious opinion for legal reasons we have discussed too many times before for me to repeat them now and would not apply to players anyway.
Whose opinion is correct? No one will know for certain until there is an opinion from the highest court with jurisdiction.
And one final point on AG opinions, it was not that long ago that many US Attorneys were running around saying that poker was "unquestionably" covered by the Wire Act (a few of the political appointees STILL do); this did not in any way stop 2 US Circuit Courts of Appeal from ruling that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting, rulings pretty much accepted as final now in the legal community given the same US Attorney Office's decision to not appeal these cases to the US Supreme Court.
Skallagrim
|