Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
NJ online poker legislation (passed) (sites listed in OP) NJ online poker legislation (passed) (sites listed in OP)

08-24-2011 , 08:55 PM
Any chance the DOJ actually clarifies what it believes the law to be re: instrastate igambling to either Reid/Kyl or to Lesniak? Any chance they already have without it having been made public?
08-25-2011 , 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
I'm glad Harry Reid and Caesars are aware of the prime importance of massive playerpools to make poker sites successful. and that they'll block this and all other intrastate leg and jam a federal system onto all these turkeys.

God listen to what you're saying.

You think it would be right for a state to pass a law, and then the federal government just come in and completely overrule it and negate it?

Do you smoke marijuana? Do you support the legalization of medical marijuana? If so, do you support the federal DEA going in and raiding dispensaries that operate completely legally in the states that have passed laws legalizing them?
08-25-2011 , 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
If this looks like the bill that almost passed earlier this year, I really hope we all get behind it and support it.

I wonder if the PPA would support it. I doubt it, seeing as they're all out on the federal regulation track.

Haven't seen a single post by anyone from the PPA in this thread. I wonder why.
08-25-2011 , 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reedy174
The wait is on til November! I have a good feeling about this after I read that a lot of other states are getting ready to introduce their own intrastate gambling laws. I'm hoping that if states pass their own gambling laws, Congress will open their eyes, and get a federal bill going that would legalize online poker nationwide.
hope hope hope

regulate poker nationwide. This is a correction the PPA should be making on the forums but isn't.

Why bother with heavy handed federal regulation if a lot of states pass their own viable and player friendly regulations?
08-25-2011 , 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troveur
+1

Not to mention that we probably have the most favorable Congress setup right now. Reid as Senate leader being totally with us, the anti gambling Pelosi out of power in the House, and Obama who won't veto something Reid approves. All 3 could easily flip control in 2012 so it really is now or never.

Sorry to break it to you, but Harry Reid doesn't give a **** about you or I or any poker player. Who he is with is his casinos, not poker players.
08-25-2011 , 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
my apologies, i was not privy to the federal opt-in option. that absolutely makes it much more palatable.

however i'm still very wary of intrastate ipoker beyond opting out of federal playerpools, because it seems that (imo) it'll be much easier for states to change (raise) the taxing scheme as time goes on.

i really don't want my livelihood in the hands of some short-sighted bureaucrat or ignorant politician when the intrastate system comes up for renewal and the schools are short 200 mil on the budget or something. i mean i'm looking at the california bill and that's where they're STARTING...


lololololol


You think the federal government would be any different? The United States is like 80 trillion dollars in debt, and online poker is being offered up to them as a revenue source. You trust good ole uncle Sam to not take all the poker money, but don't trust a state government?





I think the PPA has really distorted and skewed people's thoughts. People are being completely irrational and naive. Some of the posts in this thread are just insane.
08-25-2011 , 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
God listen to what you're saying.

You think it would be right for a state to pass a law, and then the federal government just come in and completely overrule it and negate it?

Do you smoke marijuana? Do you support the legalization of medical marijuana? If so, do you support the federal DEA going in and raiding dispensaries that operate completely legally in the states that have passed laws legalizing them?
yeah of course. i have no problem with the federal government enforcing federal laws. i'd rather focus energy on getting the federal government to work better (moving toward more reasonable federal marijuana legislation, in your example) than taking power from the federal gvt to do anything.

this is where our philosophical difference lies. i'm an american first, and a michagander like 4th, and even then i don't really care. they're practically all the same to me.
08-25-2011 , 03:06 AM
Well if you think that letting the federal government trample on state's rights to do things like legalize medical marijuana in hopes that they (federal gov.) will reform their laws is a good idea, then you really need to rethink that because on the issue of marijuana, the federal government isn't moving an inch, while states are making progress.

Quote:
By Eric W. Dolan
Sunday, July 10th, 2011 -- 12:30 pm


The Drug Enforcement Administration has ruled marijuana should remain classified as a dangerous drug like heroin because studies have not confirmed its medicinal value, but the agency may itself be to blame for the lack of evidence.

The DEA denied a 9-year-old petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana in late June, claiming that "marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision." The decision (PDF) was announced Friday.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/1...dicinal-value/


The same could be said of poker regulation. States like New Jersey are trying to pass what are apparently pretty decent laws, and the federal government is trying to trample on their 9th and 10th amendment rights to do so and they're doing so with full support from the PPA.
08-25-2011 , 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
The same could be said of poker regulation. States like New Jersey are trying to pass what are apparently pretty decent laws, and the federal government is trying to trample on their 9th and 10th amendment rights to do so and they're doing so with full support from the PPA.
States are far from "innocent" parties here. From the NJ state bill S-490 vetoed by Christie:

Quote:
There is hereby imposed an annual tax on Internet wagering gross revenues in the amount of 20% of such gross revenues which shall be paid into the casino revenue fund. The 8% tax on casino gross revenues shall not apply to Internet wagering gross revenues
The logical justification of going from 8% (B&M) to 20% (online) is ...

Spoiler:
... the government wants money.
08-25-2011 , 03:28 AM
Yes and the federal government wants money too. It's like 80 trillion dollars in debt.

With federal legislation, you have federal regulations blanketed across the entire nation, and states that opt out cannot legislate their own intrastate regulations. Therefor, if someone doesn't like the regulations, the only thing they can do is move to a different country.

But with state legislation, what one government does in one state has no affect on another state, so if you don't like the regulations you can just move to a different state.

Easier to move to a different state than a different country.
08-25-2011 , 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
Yes and the federal government wants money too. It's like 80 trillion dollars in debt.

With federal legislation, you have federal regulations blanketed across the entire nation, and states that opt out cannot legislate their own intrastate regulations. Therefor, if someone doesn't like the regulations, the only thing they can do is move to a different country.

But with state legislation, what one government does in one state has no affect on another state, so if you don't like the regulations you can just move to a different state.

Easier to move to a different state than a different country.
  1. $15 trillion is not "like" $80 trillion.
  2. Only the Barton bill contains a clause stating that opt out states cannot have their own intra-state poker sites; it is entirely possible that clause will have to be removed at some point to gain widespread support.
08-25-2011 , 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
Yes and the federal government wants money too. It's like 80 trillion dollars in debt.

With federal legislation, you have federal regulations blanketed across the entire nation, and states that opt out cannot legislate their own intrastate regulations. Therefor, if someone doesn't like the regulations, the only thing they can do is move to a different country.

But with state legislation, what one government does in one state has no affect on another state, so if you don't like the regulations you can just move to a different state.

Easier to move to a different state than a different country.
That doesn't excuse statism at the state level.

I'm not sure why you are so accepting of state-level statism, but none of these state bills are better for players than the Barton bill.

Additionally, it may be possible to pass legislation in NJ, CA, and NV, but many of us live in states that will require constitutional amendments to authorize intrastate online poker (or would require them to be run through that state's lottery...would that be statist enough for you?), while that limitation is not a factor with federal legislation.

PPA does not oppose the NJ bill, of course. PPA may very well endorse it once we complete reviewing the new filing, but your posts seem to be limited to "the federal government is evil...keep them out at all costs," when the reality of our situation is that it's the states (aside from NV) that treat gaming as something to be permitted solely for revenue -- and the maximum revenue at that.

Last edited by Rich Muny; 08-31-2011 at 01:10 AM. Reason: typo
08-25-2011 , 11:45 AM
Thank you TE.
08-26-2011 , 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
PPA does not oppose the NJ bill, of course. PPA may very well endorse it once we complete reviewing the new filing, but your posts seem to be limited to "the federal government is evil...keep them out at all costs," when the reality of our situation is that it's the states (aside from NV) that treat gaming as something to be permitted solely for revenue -- and the maximum revenue at that.
So true and well-said.
08-28-2011 , 07:39 AM
New Jersey State Sen. Raymond Lesniak Reintroduces Internet Gambling Bill

Quote:
New Jersey State Sen. Raymond Lesniak reintroduced legislation Thursday to make New Jersey the first state to legalize online gambling.

His original Internet gambling bill passed through both houses of state government earlier this year only to be vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie in March.

The day of the veto, Lesniak told PokerNews that he would not reintroduce the bill unless he reached an agreement with Christie that would guarantee the bill would not be vetoed again. No such compromise has been reached.

Lesniak said Wednesday that he is introducing the bill anyway because the horse-racing industry in New Jersey may die in the next couple of years without the revenue it could get subsidized from online gambling. The timing of the reintroduction coincides with the announcement last week that Perretti Farms, the largest breeder of standardbred horses in the Garden State, will be closing down. Horse farms are a large part of the economy in central New Jersey.

...
08-28-2011 , 07:45 AM
New Jersey S3019
An Act authorizing Internet wagering at Atlantic City casinos under certain circumstances and amending and supplementing the "Casino Control Act", P.L.1977, c.110 (C.5:12-1 et seq.).

Text in html.
Text in PDF.
08-28-2011 , 08:32 AM
Cliffs:

Licensed NJ casinos can get a permit to offer iGambling (including iPoker) to residents of NJ who are at least 21 years old.
All iGambling facilities have to be located in Atlantic City, either in a secure room in a casino or a separate secure facility.
All iGambling wagers are considered to take place in AC.
Only the licensed casinos with an iGambling permit can legally offer iGambling play to NJ players.
Casinos pay 12.5% tax of their gross iGambling revenues to the state.
Usual consumer protections for underage, problem gaming, etc.
Any applicable federal law will preempt or supersede NJ i-gambling.
Players must be located in NJ at time of play.
Deposits by wire transfer, check, money order, cash, debit/credit card, electronic transfer.
Withdrawals by check or electronic transfer.
Player must provide proof of age and proof of NJ residency when opening account.
Anyone on the NJ casino lists of persons to be excluded from casinos cannot have an online account.
Other persons not allowed to open account: state officers and their employees; members of NJ Judiciary; members of NJ Legislature; AC officers; casino principals or employees.
Casino has the right to suspend or close any account at any time.
An inactive/dormant account (time period to be determined by regulation) will be closed after attempting to contact account holder by mail, phone and computer, and any account balance is distributed half to casino and half to casino control fund.
Crime to offer unlicensed play.
Crime to tamper with software or hardware.
Initial site license fee to cover administration costs: $200K or more for first calendar year.
Yearly site license fee to cover administration costs: $100K or more.
Yearly site fee for problem gaming programs: $100K.
All licensees must enter into a agreement to jointly contribute $20M annually to NJ horse racing for the first three years after enactment.

Last edited by PokerXanadu; 08-28-2011 at 08:07 PM.
08-28-2011 , 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu
Cliffs:
...
Deposits by wire transfer, check, money order, cash, debit/credit card, electronic transfer.
...
Also looks like you can deposit with cash at the casinos themselves.
08-28-2011 , 03:29 PM
If this was passed in December 2011, how long would it take for ipoker to be up and running?
08-28-2011 , 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by THEBIGYELLOWJOINT
If this was passed in December 2011, how long would it take for ipoker to be up and running?
february 2012 - july 2012 is the best case scenerio

should really be in LC tho
08-28-2011 , 06:51 PM
i really hope this passes be really good for me as a horse owner and a poker player from NJ
08-28-2011 , 08:03 PM
It will be very interesting to see how many tables will be filled with just one state's population. That being said NJ is one of the better test states to launch intrastate Ipoker.
08-28-2011 , 10:33 PM
I don't see any issues with this particular state bill. Looks like a go to me unless Christie turns his nose up to this one. Fingers crossed everyone!
08-28-2011 , 11:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu
Cliffs:

Other persons not allowed to open account: state officers and their employees; members of NJ Judiciary; members of NJ Legislature; AC officers; casino principals or employees.
does this include dealers?
08-29-2011 , 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NutRush
does this include dealers?
Yes.

      
m