Poker raids, and US legislation?

[The_Tracker]

It seems I keep seeing more and more stories pop up regarding the legality of playing poker. Just recently there was a raid at a bowling alley in minn. at a tourney where no money was awarded or exchanged.
It's a crime to play cards to try and win a T-shirt or keychain.(!?)
There is also a bill I believe that would ban online gaming and make such cases prosecutable.(sp?)
Does anyone else see this whole thing coming to a crashing halt soon? As the popularity continues to grow, so do the complaints of Joe Public about people playing cards in places like bars and bowling alleys.
As is typical, I believe the US government will have to step in and tell us how to live life and protect us from ourselves. Cause lord knows the saftey and morality of the free world hangs in the balance.
It really boils down to all the bible thumpers and tight a$$ed conservatives. Let your ridiculous ideas of a wonderful sin free eutopia go, and realize that this is the 21st century and things have changed. People should be able to make decisions for themselves as to what they choose to do with their money, body, time etc. As long as your actions are not directly harming other people, then what is the problem?
We need to get off this moral high ground.

Oh yea, and get Bush the hell out of the white house!

[Alobar]

amen brother

[Thythe]

You're preaching to the choir

[Frozen]

[ QUOTE ]
You're preaching to the choir

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but it's always good to hear people with similar views to my own. Keep in mind that while Republicans start these moral crusades, the Dems continue them when they're in power. Clinton did NOTHING to ease up on the ridiculous war on drugs.

An act of integrity would be to vote one's concience (Libertarian!) instead of picking the lesser of two evils in November.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

First of all, the neither the President nor any federal agency has any jurisdiction over gambling. Gambling is regulated at the State level. The bill you're talking about is an attempt to control disbursements from US banks into internet gaming sites. Similar bills have passed the House, but never made it to the Senate floor in '03 and '04. In many ways, this bill is just window dressing as most US credit card companies have already stopped payments to online gaming sites on their own, not because of government actions, but because the cardholders who lost money at these sites themselves have sued them.

Second, it has already been established that internet gaming is not a violation of the Wire Act.


get Bush the hell out of the white house!

That will only help in this instance if the person that gets in doesn't take the same stance. There is one candidate in the race who will end all unconstitutional federal attempts to regulate gambling and his name is *not* John Kerry.

[cardcounter0]

There has always been Poker Raids.
There has always been Bible Thumpers.
There has always been Busy Bodies trying to tell you how to live your life.

And People have always played Poker, and probably always will.

Nothing has changed.

[Frozen]

"There is one candidate in the race who will end all unconstitutional federal attempts to regulate gambling and his name is *not* John Kerry. "

Yes...and sadly most American voters have never even heard the name Michael Badnarik.

http://www.badnarik.org/

[GoblinMason (Craig)]

[ QUOTE ]

It really boils down to all the bible thumpers and tight a$$ed conservatives.
...
Oh yea, and get Bush the hell out of the white house!

[/ QUOTE ]

As Frozen already pointed out, the democrats aren't going to be any different. I don't think it's fair to blame such a bill on conservatives just because one or some of them may have started it when democrats jump right on the wagon. I consider myself a conservative (some might say more of a libertarian) and would certainly be opposed. Don't make this out to be a republican vs. democrat issue when it's not.

Now, where's GWB when you need him...

-Craig

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, where's GWB when you need him...


[/ QUOTE ]

On this thread, you will have to settle for Gabyyyy. In fact, her response is long overdue.

[J.R.]

The Attorney General, who is a presidential appointee, can make detering internet gambling a greater or lesser priority, and the president's view on the importance of fighting internet gambling goes a long way towards determining the importance the attorney general and the justice department assign to internet gambling related matters.

One need not convict someone of an crime for engaging in or sponsoring internet gambling to negatively impact internet gambling (e.g. the travel channel/espn declining to air adds for online poker rooms at the Justice Departments insitence and the Justice Department confiscating Paradise's advertising money paid to the Travel Channel). The Justice Department is political and funnels its limited resources into fighting what are deemed politcally important crimes (e.g. the creation of the drug task in the justice department under Reagan as part of the political "war on drugs" in the 80s).

Suppose the Justice Department seized Neteller's American Assets (perhaps unlikely but plausible) as part of a criminal conspiracy charge for "aiding and abetting an illegal enterprise." Similar charges could be brought aginst american software companies or consultants who work with intenret casinos based overseas. The Justice Deaprtment could theoretically go after Cardplayer or Mike Sexton or other "celebrities" who endorse internet poker rooms for "aiding and abetting" criminal activity or enagaing in a criminal conspriacy.

Prosecutorial discretion is much more significant than the public realizes, especially when entering into relatively uncharted legal waters such as the state of internet poker. Who, what and if people are charged with crimes is not an automatic decision, and perhaps a new regime may chose to focus the federal government's limited law enforcement resources towards a more different issue.

Second, it has already been established that internet gaming is not a violation of the Wire Act

That was dicta in a 5th circuit court of appeals decision. Its not clear the language of the "Mastercard" decison (which was a civil lawsuit in which some internet gamblers tried to get away with not paying their credit card bills) binds a US district court in 5th circuit in a criminal prosecution under the wire act, and certainly doesn't bind any other circuit in which the federal government might chose to bring criminal charges against someone for the violation of the wire act. The "mastercard" opinion is certainly helpful but in no way would it be the definitive final word on this issue should the justice department chose to press charges against someone for violating the wire act.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
The Attorney General, who is a presidential appointee, can make detering internet gambling a greater or lesser priority, and the president's view on the importance of fighting internet gambling goes a long way towards determining the importance the attorney general and the justice department assign to internet gambling related matters.

One need not convict someone of an crime for engaging in or sponsoring internet gambling to negatively impact internet gambling (e.g. the travel channel/espn declining to air adds for online poker rooms at the Justice Departments insitence and the Justice Department confiscating Paradise's advertising money paid to the Travel Channel). The Justice Department is political and funnels its limited resources into fighting what are deemed politcally important crimes (e.g. the creation of the drug task in the justice department under Reagan as part of the political "war on drugs" in the 80s).

Suppose the Justice Department seized Neteller's American Assets (perhaps unlikely but plausible) as part of a criminal conspiracy charge for "aiding and abetting an illegal enterprise." Similar charges could be brought aginst american software companies or consultants who work with intenret casinos based overseas. The Justice Deaprtment could theoretically go after Cardplayer or Mike Sexton or other "celebrities" who endorse internet poker rooms for "aiding and abetting" criminal activity or enagaing in a criminal conspriacy.

Prosecutorial discretion is much more significant than the public realizes, especially when entering into relatively uncharted legal waters such as the state of internet poker. Who, what and if people are charged with crimes is not an automatic decision, and perhaps a new regime may chose to focus the federal government's limited law enforcement resources towards a more different issue.

Second, it has already been established that internet gaming is not a violation of the Wire Act

That was dicta in a 5th circuit court of appeals decision. Its not clear the language of the "Mastercard" decison (which was a civil lawsuit in which some internet gamblers tried to get away with not paying their credit card bills) binds a US district court in 5th circuit in a criminal prosecution under the wire act, and certainly doesn't bind any other circuit in which the federal government might chose to bring criminal charges against someone for the violation of the wire act. The "mastercard" opinion is certainly helpful but in no way would it be the definitive final word on this issue should the justice department chose to press charges against someone for violating the wire act.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is money.

[CORed]

I wouldn't get in too much of a panic about online gambling being banned. It seems that bills to "ban online gambling" have been introduced every year for the past several years. Lately, they seem to always get introduced very late in the congressional session, so that the session ends before the legislation can get through both houses and a conference comittee. It appears to me that a lot of people in Congress aren't too serious about banning online gambling, but want to be on record as having voted to so.

The other question is how effective such legislation would be if it did pass. Keep in mind that operating a gambling site is already illegal in the U.S., and gambling on the internet is illegal in some states. Most of the earlier bills were based on trying to get court orders to ISP's to block access to gambling sites. Proxy servers, or gambling siteschanging IP Addresses and domain names would make this approach almost impossible to effectively enforce. More recently, proposed legislation has been more focused on trying to block funding. This approach will only work if law enforcement is also able to block funding of third party fund transfer companies like Netteller, Firepay, and whatever new companies crop up if the current ones are blocked. Of course, if getting money deposited to a site is too much of a hassle, the fish may just decide to go to a casino and feed slot machines.

Trying to prosecute individuals for internet gambling seems to me to be an effort in futility that will make the "War on Drugs" seem rational by comparison.