Unfortunately the supreme court has a much different definition of what a protected right is. While I actually agree with you, the discussion is purely academic and has no practical value to the pro poker fight.

TE,

You're comparing apples to oranges, if there was a free standing bill (which we could read/support) actually being debated on the floor of the House like the prohibitive bill was in the summer of 2006, then of course we should be screaming our support for it at the top of our lungs.

My impression was that Reid is planning to attach his mystery bill onto a piece of must pass legislation so there wouldn't even be opportunity to debate it.

If the goal is to avoid a debate, it makes no sense to me for us to start one, Frist certainly didn't reach out for support months before attaching the UIGEA to the Safe Ports Act.

No they don't, playing online poker isn't a crime in most US States, neither is moving to another location where it isn't, and no court will have an issue unless you commit a crime.

The people at risk in all States are those processing and/or accepting deposits and/or charging a fee for serving the game, not the players.

Well, right, but if it were a protected right you could file as a 3rd party, alleging unconstitutional behavior even if the punitive action is targeted at other people... as long as it affects you and passes muster under a myriad of rules/doctrines/whatever.

If playing poker online were a protected right (it certainly is not according to current Court precedent), we would have grounds for a lawsuit. Won't bother with analysis on odds of winning and all that because it's a moot point.

Edit - I think it's possible I missed the early context of your posts and am misunderstanding the point you are making.

The sad thing is that the people trying to talk people out of taking action ITT will be the ones blaming PPA if legislation doesn't pass this year.

Most lawmakers tend to have a default position that their constituents oppose any expansion of any wagering-type activity. We need to counter that with grassroots action. I'm not making it up or daydreaming from my couch. This is real info based on real data from real lobbyists and people who regularly interface with lawmakers on the Hill.

Also, if this were to be super secret, you wouldn't know about it, would you?

I feel that no matter what your opinion may be about federal legislation of online poker or the PPA in general, it’s clear to me that we are at the point of no return. It looks like politicians are dead set on amending or creating new laws that deal with internet gaming. Right now, we either need to fight to have a carve-out for Poker or resign to the fact that poker will just be lumped together with the other games that become illegal. If we do nothing, our fate is the latter.

But it will get passed so we don't have to worry about this.

People have only quit playing online poker because they physically cant anymore...not because they wont.

Poker being an inalienable right is debatable. Im not saying it is or it isnt...im just saying thats a debatable statement and not a fact. Your argument and comparison to prohibition is waaaaay out there man.

Who can't play online anymore?

What are the chances the Republican majority in the House will ever agree to legalize online poker? Gambling is "against God."

Maybe we could get Jack Abramoff back on the job to bribe the hell out of them because money is the one thing so many of them seem to value over their religious beliefs. Otherwise, I just can't see it passing the House.

Folks who have never heard of the 2+2 xfer thread and have never heard of any of the current US operating sites. There are millions of these people out there. They can't play online because they don't know and they won't know that these sites are out there. Not to mention even if they did they wouldn't

The same way they (allegedly) got Kyl on board. Strengthen existing enforcement of other forms of gambling & take control of it from a federal level before it turns into a state thing.

However, I do agree getting the House GOP on board is a difficult hurdle to jump. I just don't think it's impossible.

It's never impossible. There's not a politician out there who wouldn't sacrifice his or her "morals" if enough money was thrown their way.

If a couple of states somehow get poker up and running, more states will fall in line once they see the revenue potential, IMO. Suddenly their "gambling is EVIL!" rhetoric will get spun into how those dollars can be used to build churches and grow the economy by investing in widgets.

Government isn't anti-gambling (there are federal and state lottos). They are anti-gambling when they can't figure out a way to take their cut of the industry.

Edit: Yes, there will always be a couple of holdouts, but by and large, money talks more than anything else in DC. Show how poker will bring in the dollars and watch politicians do 180s so fast you'll think they were on Dancing with the Stars.

Aren't there quote's from Rep. Barton saying he thinks there are enough vote to pass his bill in the house?

It may have been "enough vote to get it to the floor", but I think I saw something where he said the if it was brought up for a vote it would pass the whole house as a stand alone bill. No?

I get it. Oddly enough, there a tons of 2p2ers that don't even know they can still play. Including the poster ITT. Do you still play online?

Me and Karak took it to PM and I'm relatively certain I made at least some factual or logical errors and most (possibly all) of what I said was misplaced.

So sorry to him and the thread for tarding it up =p

No prob imo. Thanks for stepping up and clearing that up. I will vouch for Karak anytime. He is legit.

More big news. Perhaps the most transparent article we've seen yet on federal online poker legislation:

Heller: working with GOP leaders to legalize Web poker

^^pretty respectable.

I don't have a link to the quote but he did say his bill would pass an up-or-down vote if it made it to the floor.

From the LVRJ article:

"Such a major - and controversial - gaming bill could not pass as a stand-alone measure as it could draw opposition from a variety of interests including spurned casino competitors and social conservatives."

On a similar note, could the accusations that Adelson approved prostitution rings in his China casinos have come at a better time? (coincidence or sabotage?)

that's a quote by the author of this article.

Representative Joe Barton said this, regarding HR 2366, about 8 months ago, "If we get it up for vote in the House, we have the votes," Barton said. "I think we have the votes in the subcommittee, the full committee and on the House floor. It's a little more dicey in the Senate because of the 60-vote requirement. Our whole strategy is to get something on the president's desk this Congress, so we have 13 months to go."

to a a reporter for pokernews.

I spoke directly to Rep. Barton at the Rio. He was clear that his bill will NOT come to a vote as a stand-alone bill. (He explained why in the Town Hall video on QuadJacks.)

He also said that IF an online poker bill were put to a vote as part of another measure, it would have the House votes needed to pass. That was a BIG if, since Eric Cantor controls the process in the House and, reportedly is in Adelson's pocket. It is also a big if because any proposal to add poker HAS to come over to the House from the Senate, according to Barton, so the ball really is in Reid's court for the lame duck.

Barton, a few days later, did sound more direct, quoted that the bill would come to a vote, presumably attached to a Senate measure on something else. I did not hear that more recent statement and cannot vouch for its accuracy on whether he had changed over from "IF" to "When", i.e predicting there WOULD BE a House poker legislation vote in the lame duck.

Cantor is the biggest stumbling block in the House. He's like the final boss if the bill makes it through the Senate.

I always thought that our best chance to get Ipoker, was an attachment in conference committee.