Is unrestricted gambling "Not" illegal in any state?

[John21]

Without getting into technical arguments over what constitues gambling and where the gambling is taking place (for internet) - I think the common sense answer is that we've all been breaking state laws by playing online poker.

Now before you flame me - what's really changed with the passing of the bill?
-some sites will block US ISPs - but others will not.
-I'm not aware of any poker players who have been arrested, just business owners who facilitate gambling.
-It will be harder to get funds to a site - this has been going on for years and a seemless workaround has always been found.

Even if you concede that online poker players are violating laws that have never been enforced, isn't that a form of legislation nullification?

This legislation could end up being virtually impotent, not unenforceable, just unenforced. But I still withdrew most of my funds.

[okietalker]

I put my funds into neteller. I will just take a wait and see attitude. Within a week or two most of this BS is going to come to fruition. Then within 6 months this law will actually start to be enforced. That is, if it ever is actually enforced.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the common sense answer is that we've all been breaking state laws by playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. I live in California, for example, and there is no California law against playing poker.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the common sense answer is that we've all been breaking state laws by playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. I live in California, for example, and there is no California law against playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were no laws governing "unresticted" gambling, you could open up your own poker room and allow a 12 year-old to play.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the common sense answer is that we've all been breaking state laws by playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. I live in California, for example, and there is no California law against playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were no laws governing "unresticted" gambling, you could open up your own poker room and allow a 12 year-old to play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every business is restricted in the sense that you at least need a business license to engage in it. But you asserted that we were all breaking laws by playing poker, and this isn't true.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the common sense answer is that we've all been breaking state laws by playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. I live in California, for example, and there is no California law against playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were no laws governing "unresticted" gambling, you could open up your own poker room and allow a 12 year-old to play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every business is restricted in the sense that you at least need a business license to engage in it. But you asserted that we were all breaking laws by playing poker, and this isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I guess you're right for Cal. I wonder if the state could challenge the Feds for infringing upon Constitutionally protected state rights.

[ihardlyknowher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the common sense answer is that we've all been breaking state laws by playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. I live in California, for example, and there is no California law against playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]



If there were no laws governing "unresticted" gambling, you could open up your own poker room and allow a 12 year-old to play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every business is restricted in the sense that you at least need a business license to engage in it. But you asserted that we were all breaking laws by playing poker, and this isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I guess you're right for Cal. I wonder if the state could challenge the Feds for infringing upon Constitutionally protected state rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the feds have the right to regulate something (via the Commerce Clause for example), their law preempts the state law.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the common sense answer is that we've all been breaking state laws by playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. I live in California, for example, and there is no California law against playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to read this. He thinks it is unlawful.

Can you tell us why you disagree and why we haven't heard this huge news from some important California official?

If you and California officials have a good argument as to why online poker in California is NOT unlawful, then all you have to do is prove that to the proper Federales; they will be chagrined to find their pending "Unlawful Internet Gambling" law doesn't apply to California gamblers. Let us know first so we can grab some land out there.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the common sense answer is that we've all been breaking state laws by playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. I live in California, for example, and there is no California law against playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to read this. He thinks it is unlawful.

[/ QUOTE ]
He is actually half right. He says that playing poker for money with a percentage rake is illegal, and also that playing in a tournament with an entry fee is illegal.

He's right on the first point. The rake cannot be a percentage of the pot. It can, however, be a graduated scale with up to four different levels (including zero for the smallest pots). So the house could, for example, charge zero for pots of up to $5, a quarter for pots up to $10, fifty cents for pots up to $15, and seventy-five cents for pots over $15.

Online poker sites tend to have more than four different levels of rake. So technically playing cash games at Party violates section 330 of the California penal code.

He's wrong, however, about tournaments with entry fees. He states that the entry fee may be considered a percentage of the buy-in. Well, I guess it may, but it's not. Tournaments are played all the time in local card rooms. (Card rooms, by the way, do all use a "drop" instead of a "rake." That is, they take a fixed amount from each pot, usually $3 for the house and $1 for the bad beat jackpot, regardless of the size of the pot. They will take none when there is no flop, and they will take an extra buck or two from the bigger pots, but this is within the "four level" rule.)

By the way, the history of the legality of poker in California is somewhat interesting.

The original anti-gambling statute was passed in 1872. It named the specific games that were illegal, such as faro, monte, and roulette.

In 1885 it was amended to prohibit "stud-horse poker." So stud poker was illegal, but draw poker was legal.

In the 1940s and 1950s, California appellate courts in several different districts held that draw poker was illegal even though the statute didn't name it because, as a gambling game, it was contrary to public policy.

Later, the attorney general issued an opinion stating that draw poker, unlike stud poker, was legal as long as there was no percentage rake.

(This is why draw poker, especially lowball draw, was popular in California card rooms in the eighties.)

In 1990, a court held that Texas hold 'em was not technically a stud game, so it was also legal (as long as there was no percentage rake).

In 1991, the legislature went ahead and legalized stud as well (as long as there was no percentage rake).

So all forms of poker are now legal with a drop rather than a rake, and tournaments are also legal since the entry fee for a given tournament complies with the "four levels" rule (since it has only one level).

[ QUOTE ]
Can you tell us why you disagree and why we haven't heard this huge news from some important California official?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not huge news at all. There are card rooms all over the place that spread poker games.

[ QUOTE ]
If you and California officials have a good argument as to why online poker in California is NOT unlawful, then all you have to do is prove that to the proper Federales; they will be chagrined to find their pending "Unlawful Internet Gambling" law doesn't apply to California gamblers. Let us know first so we can grab some land out there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Online MTTs and SNGs are lawful since there is no percentage rake. Come on out and grab some land.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
If the feds have the right to regulate something (via the Commerce Clause for example), their law preempts the state law.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The Commerce Clause isn't used how it was intended by a long shot and the vast majority of government behavior justified by it is unconstitutional.

"it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government" - James Madison, writer of the Constitution

2. If you ban something entirely, you are failing to regulate it. :P