Frank to introduce bill.....

[sellthekids]

Barney Frank was on NPR today - the stream will be up at 7:30PM EST

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9884085

[Johnny McEldoo]

gaboonviper has been awfully quiet as of late [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bill is definitely a step in the right direction, but I'm really worried about the 11 states. The very real danger is that people living there are going to be shut out completely, if FTP and PS go legit, and go from a bad situation to even worse one.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, I think a number of those 11 states dont have illegal internet gambling laws, just shaky ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
I remember going through New Jersey's laws when I was thinking about registering from TradeSports, and I remember seeing it expressly written that placing wagers over Internet is illegal. It wasn't enforced, obviously, but even laws that aren't enforced are going to be enough to prevents the licensed operators from allowing you to play.

[JPFisher55]

Skall, what I meant is that since ewallets will service both licensed sites and unlicensed sites, banks will not be able to tell which transactions and customers of the ewallets come from licensed or unlicensed sites. Thus, the banks, FRS etc. can't enforce the UIGEA. This removes the burden on the banking system. Therefore, I think that the banking industry (especially smaller banks) and their lobbyists will support this bill.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
the Feds say legal unless opted out

[/ QUOTE ]

We wish it said that, it doesn't, so your theory is weak. It says it will regulate existing "lawful internet gambling", not create "lawful internet gambling". If your theory is correct and a state forgets to opt out, who will create what is lawful---Barney, you, me, the gambling site, the state??

The bill also says "NO EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.—No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or
extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States." How does that fit your theory?


What it also says is that "some form of gambling is permitted in every state" which admits existing lawful gambling comes from states; and also admits that some gambling is NOT permitted in states, opt out or not.


[ QUOTE ]
states that want out will have to have already, or newly pass, legislation saying explicitly "internet gambling is illegal here."

[/ QUOTE ]

No they won't. Just because you modify gambling business with internet doesn't make it lawful. If a state says your gambling business exists only when and how they allow it to exist, that includes internet. They would opt out using their current general gambling prohibitions.


[ QUOTE ]
Those laws that say "internet gambling illegal without state license" wont cut it, a Fed license trumps a state license every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then that state would certainly opt out, but again, suppose they forgot, how does a Federal license that allows you to offer lawful gambling make you feel comfy in a state that is anti-gambling business? Remember, it says you must have "Appropriate safeguards to ensure that the individual placing a bet or wager is physically located in a jurisdiction that permits Internet gambling at the time the bet or wager is placed." Very risky since they don't permit.


If the mythical 35-40 states really wanted legalization, as everyone seems strangely convinced they do, why would they need this extra regulation? Wouldn't they just do it and form a compact? Or pass a much simpler enabling act?

[TheEngineer]

Permafrost,

Do you think Frank's bill is a scam? I'm just trying to understand your opinion relative to your discussion of the specifics of the legislation. Your use of phrases like "your theory", etc, leads me to believe you think we're being misled. Thanks.

TE

[JPFisher55]

permafrost=gaboonviper

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Permafrost,

Do you think Frank's bill is a scam? I'm just trying to understand your opinion relative to your discussion of the specifics of the legislation. Your use of phrases like "your theory", etc, leads me to believe you think we're being misled. Thanks.

TE

[/ QUOTE ]

Being misled? Not what I was getting at. In fact I don't believe any leader had led us.

My main concern is about the extant misinformation.

[Skallagrim]

I think permafrost's main concern is trying to find a place where he can say "skallagrim you are worng." Either that or he is fixated on state licensing laws. If its the latter, permafrost misunderstands the nature of federalism in our constitution. If its the former, keep trying, eventually you will get me, but I am smart so it may take a while [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

[RiverRider]

So when is this bill supposed to be voted? I mean, in around how many days/weeks will we know if this bill passed or not?

Any approximation will do. =)