backtop

Print 22 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Feb 24 at 9:07 AM
Nevada beats New Jersey to the punch

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed a bill into law this week that legalizes online poker in the absence of federal action. The Nevada Legislature fast-tracked the online gaming bill declaring it an emergency measure taking the bill to the Governor for signature on Thursday.

Both houses of the legislature voted unanimously to pass Assembly Bill 114, and the bill is expected to expand the customer base for Nevada casinos and should bring in a huge influx of cash.


Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed Bill 114 after is was fast tracked through the state Legislature. [Image Source: Watchdog]

“We’re going to do it now,” said Assembly Majority Leader William Horne, D-Las Vegas. “We’re going to beat New Jersey.”

Nevada is in a competition with New Jersey to become the country's online gaming hub. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill passed by his state legislature previously, but is expected to sign an amended bill next week.

“This is good-natured competition,” said Pete Ernaut, lobbyist for the Nevada Resort Association, in reference to New Jersey. “If we get there first, fantastic. If we get there within 24 to 48 hours, it’s not a big deal.”


New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is rushing to put his state on equal footing with Nevada in online gambling. [Image Source: Getty Images]

One reason the bill is able to move forward so quickly was due to a compromise allowing the Nevada Gaming Commission to double the $500,000 online poker license fee to $1 million in certain circumstances.

Another caveat in the bill bans companies that illegally participated in online gaming between 2006 and 2011 for a period of five years.

Source: Las Vegas Sun


Comments     Threshold


I Don't Understand
By DaveLessnau on 2/22/2013 10:01:02 AM , Rating: 2
I was under the impression the feds had banned online gambling. Am I wrong? If I'm not, how will the states be able to do this?




RE: I Don't Understand
By theapparition on 2/22/2013 10:55:31 AM , Rating: 3
The feds banned "offshore" online gambling, because they couldn't reliably take a tax cut of the revenue. But casinos are highly regulated, so they can monitor and get their share. Actually, it's preferred since there is an electronic trail.

Right now, states don't like the fact that anyone can walk in, make a few bucks and not necessarily report it.

I swear, if prostitution wasn't primarily a cash only business and was easier to track, the states and feds would make that legal too.


RE: I Don't Understand
By aebiv on 2/22/2013 11:00:53 AM , Rating: 1
Because technically, and legally (although not so much in the past 100 years) State law trumps Federal law unless it is a law strictly outlined in the Constitution.


RE: I Don't Understand
By Integral9 on 2/22/2013 11:18:46 AM , Rating: 2
True, but there are usually repercussions for the States should they decide to go against the Federal Laws. For example, when there was a Federal Speed Limit, the law was adopted by all states because if they didn't they would loose Federal funding for their highways. That law has since been repealed (1990s), but it's an example of how Federal Laws get "forced" onto states.


RE: I Don't Understand
By Theoz on 2/22/2013 1:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
This is only partially correct. It's not so much that state law trumps federal law but that the federal law would be unconstitutional.

If the law is in an area that the federal government is given power to control under the Constitution (e.g. interstate commerce) then federal laws preempt state law.

If not in an area designated to the federal government, then the states can do whatever they want and the federal law would be unconstitutional.


RE: I Don't Understand
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2013 11:06:44 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand what gave ANY Government the authority to ban any type of online gambling in the first place. Since online activity takes place in a virtual environment, not within any state border.

Just more over reaching. Of course they'll conveniently lift the "bans" once the've ensured they'll be properly paid off and the State gets a big cut.


RE: I Don't Understand
By Shig on 2/22/2013 11:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
I'm trying to think of a country with less taxes and more freedom than the US, nope cannot think of one. Maybe you should go figure it out Reclaimer and then move there.


RE: I Don't Understand
By Breathless on 2/22/2013 12:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and we want to keep it that way. It will always however, be an uphill battle to maintain freedom; with it always and inevitably eventually being usurped by stupid, stupid people who never recognize the signs of its deterioration.


RE: I Don't Understand
By PontiusP on 2/22/2013 1:14:27 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Liberty is not the default. Rather, tyranny is the default, liberty is the exception. Which means liberty must be fought for every, single, damn, day.

Yes, most of the world gets a D or an F in the liberty department. America gets a C-. Does that mean we shouldn't be fighting for an A? Hell no. Every day we will fight for the A.

Wake up!


RE: I Don't Understand
By Jeffk464 on 2/23/2013 11:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
There are lots of countries with more freedoms, but not necessarily with lower taxes.


RE: I Don't Understand
By Gondor on 2/22/2013 12:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
It would be st00pid beyond belief to ban a source of income. Whichever state implmenets it first will get the lion's share of the profits. It doesn't matter where the visitors are coming from, it is an online venture so they could be from all over the world (bringing in the money) - what matters in the end is that state gets a cut (in taxes) and that business employs some people (who are therefore off welfare). Win-win for the state.

Be too puritan and customers will go elsewhere and somebody else will reap the profits.


RE: I Don't Understand
By Jeffk464 on 2/23/2013 10:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
You know with his beach ball physiche Chris Christie should reintroduce the Toga to politics. If he is really going to run for president can't the republican party afford to hire Jillian Michaels for six months or so.


RE: I Don't Understand
By Reclaimer77 on 2/24/2013 9:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
He's a RINO, and another embarrassment to the party. Having him as President would hardly be any better than Obama.


Just great...
By Creig on 2/22/2013 11:19:22 AM , Rating: 1
Now people will have the ability to completely ruin their family's finances right from within their own homes. I'm sorry, but allowing online gambling is a very bad idea.

I worked for an Indian casino briefly out of college and I was amazed at the number of people that I knew who came in and dropped cash that they (and their families) couldn't afford to lose. One guy lost his truck, his business and then his wife because he had a gambling addiction.

In some states, if a bar serves an obviously inebriated person, they can be held liable for the consequences if that person drives and causes injury or death. A casino can take an entire family's worldly possessions because of one person's addiction and it's perfectly legal. Hell, there are even ATM's in casinos just in case you run out of the cash you walked in with!

And internet gambling makes it entirely TOO EASY for people to get into MAJOR trouble that will affect not only them, but their spouses and children.

If you want to gamble that badly, go to a casino. Internet gambling should not be allowed just so that states can balance their budgets. The consequences simply are not worth the revenue.




RE: Just great...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/22/2013 11:29:22 AM , Rating: 2
You have been targeted for destruction by Reclaimer. Prepare yourself ;)

That being said, these online gambling bans seem pretty dumb to me. If people want to gamble, they are going to gamble -- PERIOD. So what if it's easier to do. A fool and his money are soon departed.

Reminds me of the whole assault weapons ban thing. I personally don't own any guns, nor do I have the urge to own any guns, but I think the whole thing is stupid. Banning assault weapons won't stop mass shootings. Where there's a will, there's a way.

I'm not saying that NOTHING whatsoever should be done, but banning specific types of assault weapons or magazine clip sizes does not solve the problem.


RE: Just great...
By Creig on 2/22/2013 11:45:02 AM , Rating: 3
I knew I'd be on Reclaimer's radar, but had to post it anyhow. :)

My experience working at a casino really opened my eyes to how many people have gambling addictions. I don't prefer to gamble myself, but as long as it's done for entertainment purposes only then there's no problem.

The issue I have with INTERNET gambling is that shortly you will be able to do it right from your home. To me, that is simply too enabling for too many people to ruin not only their own lives, but the lives of their spouses and children. All for the sake of covering the asses of politicians who overspent their State's budgets and are now scrambling to try and find any way they can to repay it.

As I said, it's simply my personal opinion. But I wouldn't be sad if internet gambling stayed banned.


RE: Just great...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/13, Rating: -1
RE: Just great...
By Jeffk464 on 2/23/2013 11:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
I also don't enjoy gambling, I have never found loosing hard earned money to be that fun.


RE: Just great...
By Schrag4 on 2/22/2013 12:27:56 PM , Rating: 3
With that kind of logic, all alcohol should be prohibited as well. In moderation, online gambling, like alcohol, is just fine, but can screw up your life if you take it too far.

I'm not an online gambler, for the record, but I don't think it should be banned. Personally, I think it's a bad idea anyway because IMO it would be to hard to prevent cheating. I'm also not a smoker but I don't think cities should be able to tell businesses not to allow smoking either. Businesses can make that distinction on their own and if enough customers complain then they'll do what's best for their bottom line. I'm sure there are businesses that would thrive as the alternative for smokers, too.


RE: Just great...
By Jeffk464 on 2/23/2013 11:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, it all depends how far people are willing to take the nanny state. Limiting everybodies freedoms to protect some people from themselves. Personally I don't like any laws that are meant to protect people from themselves.


RE: Just great...
By PontiusP on 2/22/2013 1:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
Another nanny state do-gooder out to ram their social/economic views down everyone else's throat.

How about this, we allow people to live their lives as they choose and also bear the costs of their actions? It's a thing called liberty, look it up.


RE: Just great...
By ptmmac on 2/22/2013 7:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
I have only been to a casino once. I won $100 and bought dinner for my friends. The uncool part was the 120 mph police car that passed us as we headed back to Memphis to spend money on dinner. The newspaper said a man shot himself in the head after putting $40,000 on black and losing. It was his last money and his wife was with him. If you want to make money like that go ahead, but I am not going to have anything to do with you. It is a sick dirty business that makes alcohol and drugs look tame by comparison.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA









botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki