|
|
#2
07-03-2007, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If the Indian casinos in FL don\'t have to follow the laws...
It's not that they're disregarding the law. They're just talking the most liberal interpretation, since the legislative history has no bearing on their quasi-sovereign legal situation.
|
|
#3
07-03-2007, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If the Indian casinos in FL don\'t have to follow the laws...
[ QUOTE ]
It's not that they're disregarding the law. They're just talking the most liberal interpretation, since the legislative history has no bearing on their quasi-sovereign legal situation. [/ QUOTE ] Could you explain this to me in English please? lol thanks
|
|
#4
07-03-2007, 11:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If the Indian casinos in FL don\'t have to follow the laws...
They are using the wording of the bill, "However, a cardroom operator may conduct games of Texas Hold-em without a betting limit if the required player buy-in is no more than $100." to their advantage.
Basically, it can be read that the minimum buy-in is $100 and there is no maximum bet.
|
|
#5
07-03-2007, 11:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If the Indian casinos in FL don\'t have to follow the laws...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's not that they're disregarding the law. They're just talking the most liberal interpretation, since the legislative history has no bearing on their quasi-sovereign legal situation. [/ QUOTE ] Could you explain this to me in English please? lol thanks [/ QUOTE ] The 'Noles must go by the law, but they read it to say that big games can be spread, and since they don't need the state to sign off on how they read it, 'cause they're 'Noles, they can pull it off. They just had to have the state pass a law this vague (is that word too big? look it up) for them to have the chance to spread games this big.
|
|
#6
07-04-2007, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If the Indian casinos in FL don\'t have to follow the laws...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's not that they're disregarding the law. They're just talking the most liberal interpretation, since the legislative history has no bearing on their quasi-sovereign legal situation. [/ QUOTE ] Could you explain this to me in English please? lol thanks [/ QUOTE ] The 'Noles must go by the law, but they read it to say that big games can be spread, and since they don't need the state to sign off on how they read it, 'cause they're 'Noles, they can pull it off. They just had to have the state pass a law this vague (is that word too big? look it up) for them to have the chance to spread games this big. [/ QUOTE ] They do not have to go by the law. But what they're doing is talking out of both sides of their mouth. They are saying that they are abiding by the law in a spirit of cooperation whilst negotiating a Class III gaming pact. But they're stretching the language of the law to some pretty bizarre extremes.
|
|
#7
07-04-2007, 09:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If the Indian casinos in FL don\'t have to follow the laws...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's not that they're disregarding the law. They're just talking the most liberal interpretation, since the legislative history has no bearing on their quasi-sovereign legal situation. [/ QUOTE ] Could you explain this to me in English please? lol thanks [/ QUOTE ] The 'Noles must go by the law, but they read it to say that big games can be spread, and since they don't need the state to sign off on how they read it, 'cause they're 'Noles, they can pull it off. They just had to have the state pass a law this vague (is that word too big? look it up) for them to have the chance to spread games this big. [/ QUOTE ] They do not have to go by the law. But what they're doing is talking out of both sides of their mouth. They are saying that they are abiding by the law in a spirit of cooperation whilst negotiating a Class III gaming pact. But they're stretching the language of the law to some pretty bizarre extremes. [/ QUOTE ] Read 25 USC 2710(b)(1)(A), and then fix your post.
|
|
#8
07-04-2007, 10:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If the Indian casinos in FL don\'t have to follow the laws...
(1) Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are—
... (B) located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity, and .... Thanks, Broward residents, for voting to approve class III slots!
|
|
#10
07-04-2007, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If the Indian casinos in FL don\'t have to follow the laws...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's not that they're disregarding the law. They're just talking the most liberal interpretation, since the legislative history has no bearing on their quasi-sovereign legal situation. [/ QUOTE ] Could you explain this to me in English please? lol thanks [/ QUOTE ] The 'Noles must go by the law, but they read it to say that big games can be spread, and since they don't need the state to sign off on how they read it, 'cause they're 'Noles, they can pull it off. They just had to have the state pass a law this vague (is that word too big? look it up) for them to have the chance to spread games this big. [/ QUOTE ] They do not have to go by the law. But what they're doing is talking out of both sides of their mouth. They are saying that they are abiding by the law in a spirit of cooperation whilst negotiating a Class III gaming pact. But they're stretching the language of the law to some pretty bizarre extremes. [/ QUOTE ] Read 25 USC 2710(b)(1)(A), and then fix your post. [/ QUOTE ] No, you go read it, and then take a flying leap.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
