is there wiggle room to allow individual states to operate online site

redbeard · #1 09-30-2006, 05:29 AM

i've heard some posters suggest there is wording that may allow for individual states to licence and or operate an online site. previously i'd heard rumors north dakota, new york and nevada have considered the possibility with n.dakota coming the closest to passing legislation to make online poker legal. does anyone see this as the possible future of online gaming in the united states? if so the future may not be near as bleak as i fear.

FastForward7 · #2 09-30-2006, 05:35 AM

Still bleak. Do you really want to live in North Dakota? I'd put the line for how long it would take me to slit my wrists at 2 weeks. And then proceede to take the under...

edit: I should also mention that I think most people are really missing the big picture problem here. This bill won't really directly hurt most of us here. This bill mainly seems to attack deposits, not cashouts or playing in general. We've all got bankrolls that we play off of without the need to deposit. What this bill mainly seems to mean for us is a severe cutback in how well the fish pond is stocked with losing, and consequently, reloading players. Just my $2/4 from what I've read anyway.

catcher193 · #3 09-30-2006, 05:36 AM

no, If a Federal Law is passed then it supercedes, (if thats the word) anything the individual states choose to do. Individual States can only make their own Laws for issues that the Federal Government has not made a law for already, hope that clears anything up.

redbeard · #4 09-30-2006, 05:55 AM

but i believe someone said that there was wording that would allow individual states to either licence or regulate an online site. this would be in keeping with the current "states rights" that allows individual states to allow various forms of gambling withing their borders. as far as the north dakota thing i imagine it would be boring but lets say that 10 or so states get together and sanction online gambling for their residents we could see a large enough pool to make it worth while. heck some of the larger states may even be close to worth it by themselves lets say california, new york, and texas for instance might have as many fish as the whole of england. just a thought and wishful thinking i know but worthy of discussion i hope.

ubercuber · #5 09-30-2006, 05:58 AM

One of the bills, and I don't remember which one, contained teh wording -except where state law allows- or something to that effect. I havn't looked at the port bills wording.

Gunslinger1988 · #6 09-30-2006, 06:00 AM

The section of the bill I'm referring to states: Interstate Transactions-- The term "unlawful internet gambling" does not include a bet or wager when the bet or wager is initiated and recived exclusively within a single state.
This is taken from the entire bill http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/t...43_portscr.pdf
I encourage everyone to take the time to read this bill ( pages 213-244 ) . If we are more informed we will be able to have more productive discussions on the future of online poker.

Personally I'm not crazy about the idea of state run poker rooms because the player base will be so much smaller. But it is my opinion that this potential revenue stream is a big part of why Frist pushed so hard for this bill just before his retirement.

ubercuber · #7 09-30-2006, 06:07 AM

Iowa Poker.com!!

BluffTHIS! · #8 09-30-2006, 06:19 AM

I've read the language a couple times on this, but am not a lawyer. However the following seems true:

1) the bill does NOT prohibit intra-state wagering as long as entities in that state (or Indian land) take measures to block access from residents of other states (the constitution's commerce clause would probably not allow them to restrict this if they wanted to).

2) the bill does not however overide state laws on same, i.e. if gambling over the net is currently illegal in a state it still is (which probably means all even if not explicitly so as with the recent Washington state law).

So *if* a state wants to pass a law legalizing a poker site for residents of its state only, it may do so. Thus if my anlysis is correct, then a state could license poker stars to run a cardroom for members of its state only. So hope your state does it and that there are enough fish in your state pond.

Edited to add: The above should make sense to everyone anyway since the states are the ones who regulate gambling within their borders anyway. In a way this law keeps sites from violating state laws. Although however its restrictions would not seem to allow states to make compacts among themselves for an inter-state cardroom in the way states run multi-state lotteries or betting on horse racing in other states.

redbeard · #9 09-30-2006, 06:55 AM

can you site in the bill where they specifically stated that states cannot get together and form a pool just like they do with the powerball?

BluffTHIS! · #10 09-30-2006, 07:00 AM

red,

It says a state or Indian tribal land must deny access to those outside its own borders. Click on the bill text link in Nate's thread and start on p.213 then page down until you see it. It is very clear. Furthermore, congress, by virtue of the commerce clause, has the power to regulate inter-state commerce, which that would be. Also, current parimutual horse racing pools, as well as powerball lotteries, involve sales (wagers) purchased (made) in a B&M joint and not over net, except for horse racing (over the phone through UBet) which got a carve out in the language while other forms of gambling other than fantasy sports didn't.