Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="dmorris68, post: 1535789, member: 40397"] There is another thread, and hopefully this will be merged, but I wanted to address the specific article the OP linked to. First though, this bill is not pending in committee. It was voted on and passed committee last week. It now goes before the full House and Senate for votes, and then to Obama to sign into law. Quite a ways to go yet. Second, I question a lot of the information written in this article. Namely: [list][*]It is a Vegas publication with an apparent Nevada slant. Nevada is quite hostile to internet gaming already, being one of the handful of states that already specifically outlaw it. I think this is further indicated by the quote: [*]The article states "The federal government considers all forms of Internet gambling illegal, however." As a blanket statement, that is completely bogus and untrue, but it's a common misconception. Apparently even among the "gambling educated." The Wire Act made it illegal for gambling [u]operators[/u], and specifically, those who run sports books (not poker), to operate within the USA. It does not mention nor address players. Even the UIGEA only applies to banks and other financial institutions, and then only in prohibiting deposits to gaming sites. Not withdrawals, and in fact goes on to stipulate that players must be able to withdraw. This tacit acknowledgement and protection of players belies any federal law making it illegal to actually play. Clearly the target of all US laws to date around internet gambling are aimed squarely at the operators themselves, and not at players. [*]They talk about the amendment that could essentially blacklist PokerStars and FullTilt, since they currently operate "illegally." Not sure how that's possible since they aren't US operations, but whatever. Anyway, I was following the HR2267 debate and vote via PPA's live Twitter feed. It was reported that an amendment was proposed by Bachus and Bachman (probably the most vocal anti-gambling people on the committee) to apply a "lifetime ban" on all current internet gambling sites and their employees from being licensed under the new law. About 6 minutes later, the PPA reported that the Bachus/Bachmann amendment was withdrawn: [img]http://morrisonline.us/pics/poker/hr2267_1.png[/img] Unless there was another one added later that the PPA did not report on, I'm unaware of there being one. Also, the PPA is quoted in this very same article as saying: [/list] Bottom line, there is a ton of FUD and misinformation floating around about internet gambling. Even among the lawmakers, authorities, and the expert gamblers themselves. It would take not only a law degree but a specialization in the gaming field to understand it all. I don't pretend to understand much, but I do read up on a lot of others who do, and when you actually read the statutes, it's at least pretty clear what they [u]don't[/u] mention. There [u]is[/u] a lot of legal gray area to get through yet. It could go either way, better than it is now, or worse. But at this point it's too early to say and at least we're having some positive movement in the area. Let's not be too quick to assume the sky is falling, and let's keep the pressure on our representatives in Congress so they know how important this is. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language