i swear i missed that memo, i thought betting offshore was legal...boy i'm stupid if that is not true
when did sports gambling online become illegal
- Thread starter mjalam
- Start date
whats up mj.........yea i think its illegal to gamble online in california but i might be wrong but i do it anyway LOL
thanks guys, i didn't know they actually passed the laws to make it illegal...good thing i didn't quit my day job
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/va06_goodlatte/021606.html
i still think they're working on making offshore gambling illegal :shrug:
i still think they're working on making offshore gambling illegal :shrug:
most lawyers (not with justice dept) believe there is no Federal law against it and therefore legal in most states. Some states, like NJ, do ban all sportsbetting. Some cities do too.
as you read in statement on proposed bill, it is a sort of grey area concerning the Wire Act. Hence, this bill will clear up the confusion and make it plainly illegal. If it were plainly illegal in US, there would be no reason for this bill.
the Wire Act has been used against offshore casino/sportsbook operators, but not against bettors. Most experts believe that it does not apply to individuals making bets, only operators, and this is how nearly all courts have interpreted it.
Also, there is additional confusion if DSL, cable lines, or wifi, etc can be considered "telephone lines" (as Wire Act just deals with telephone lines)
The World Court opinion is still in legal wranglings, but would be funny if this hated bastion (by all Red Blooded Americans) of One World Goverment came to the rescue of us!
as you read in statement on proposed bill, it is a sort of grey area concerning the Wire Act. Hence, this bill will clear up the confusion and make it plainly illegal. If it were plainly illegal in US, there would be no reason for this bill.
the Wire Act has been used against offshore casino/sportsbook operators, but not against bettors. Most experts believe that it does not apply to individuals making bets, only operators, and this is how nearly all courts have interpreted it.
Also, there is additional confusion if DSL, cable lines, or wifi, etc can be considered "telephone lines" (as Wire Act just deals with telephone lines)
The World Court opinion is still in legal wranglings, but would be funny if this hated bastion (by all Red Blooded Americans) of One World Goverment came to the rescue of us!
Last edited:
Wrong....most lawyers agree it is illegal. The Congress is working on laws to eliminate any doubt federally. There is no doubt already under many state laws.
Most lawyers agree bookmaking is illegal by Federal law.
Most lawyers agree bettors placing bets is not illegal by Federal law.
This opinion from a standard entry on it you see in such resource books:
the legislative history[60] of the Wire Act seems to support the position that casual bettors would fall outside of the prosecutorial reach of the statute. During the House of Representatives debate on the bill, Congressman Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee stated "[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler who bets $2 on a race. That type of transaction is not within the purvue of the statute."[61] In Baborian, the federal district court concluded that Congress did not intend to include social bettors within the umbrella of the statute, even those bettors that bet large sums of money and show a certain degree of sophistication.[62]
here's testimony on it by Deputy Assitant Attorney General in 1998:
"the Wire Communications Act has targeted only individuals in the "business of betting or wagering" in order to cover professional lay-off bettors, but not mere bettors. During hearings on the 1961 bill, then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy acknowledged that the Department had no intent to prosecute individual bettors, because it would be an almost impossible task for the federal government to accomplish. The same is certainly true today. Criminal penalties against individual bettors have traditionally been left to the states to implement and enforce"
Most lawyers agree bettors placing bets is not illegal by Federal law.
This opinion from a standard entry on it you see in such resource books:
the legislative history[60] of the Wire Act seems to support the position that casual bettors would fall outside of the prosecutorial reach of the statute. During the House of Representatives debate on the bill, Congressman Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee stated "[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler who bets $2 on a race. That type of transaction is not within the purvue of the statute."[61] In Baborian, the federal district court concluded that Congress did not intend to include social bettors within the umbrella of the statute, even those bettors that bet large sums of money and show a certain degree of sophistication.[62]
here's testimony on it by Deputy Assitant Attorney General in 1998:
"the Wire Communications Act has targeted only individuals in the "business of betting or wagering" in order to cover professional lay-off bettors, but not mere bettors. During hearings on the 1961 bill, then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy acknowledged that the Department had no intent to prosecute individual bettors, because it would be an almost impossible task for the federal government to accomplish. The same is certainly true today. Criminal penalties against individual bettors have traditionally been left to the states to implement and enforce"
Internet Gambling is as illegal as Internet Porn except they have recently started to enforce the latter. There are current arrest warrants for US Citizens involved with Internet Casinos. Note they are located in Countries with no extradition treaties. Curious to know what would happen to the money when the rug starts to move.
Wednesday, March 8, 2006
Kyl/Goodlatte Speculation Reaches Frenzy
by Bradley Vallerius
It is anticipated that within the week Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., may attempt to attach an online gambling prohibition bill to a larger bill aimed at lobbying reform. It seems likely that Sen. Kyl's legislation will be nearly identical to the prohibition bill introduced by Rep. James Leach, R-Iowa, in November 2005, which also happens to be scheduled to appear before the House Financial Services Committee this week.
Following revelations in October 2005 that lobbyist Jack Abramoff-- who has since pleaded guilty to a number of federal offenses--worked to defeat a bill in the House of Representatives in 2000, online gambling prohibition has been a primary target for Republicans wishing to distance themselves from the Abramoff scandals.
Sen. Kyl's attempt to attach online gambling legislation as an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill proved unsuccessful in September 2005 after the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee objected to the attachment on the grounds that it constituted general legislation on an appropriations bill and was therefore out of order.
But with the subject of the impending bill being lobbying reform and reparations, Kyl's amendment has a slimmer chance of being rejected this time.
"This would demonstrate that not only are we changing the mechanisms [of lobbying], here is one tangible result," Kyl told the Wall Street Journal. "Jack Abramoff is not going to have his way now."
The reason for such broad and renewed support in the fight against online gambling is because lawmakers want to "show some separation between them and him," said Rep. Goodlatte, who was the chief sponsor of the defeated 2000 bill. Since introducing HR 4777 (The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act) on Feb. 16, Goodlatte has already obtained over 100 co-sponsors.
Even Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Tex., the man whose aid received $50,000 via payments to his wife from Abramoff, is reported to support Goodlatte's bill. It has been widely reported that the very same aid, Tony Rudy, assisted in putting the 2000 bill on the suspension calendar, which requires bills to obtain two-thirds approval in the House, rather than a majority.
Mike Connolly, a spokesperson for DeLay, told the Wall Street Journal that DeLay opposed the bill in 2000 because it contained too many exemptions.
Goodlatte's prohibitory model differs from that of Kyl in that Goodlatte's bill would update the Wire Act to clarify that all unauthorized forms of gambling conducted by any remote means are illegal, while Kyl's bill seeks to eliminate the use of credit cards and other financial instruments to pay for online gambling services.
It is thought that Kyl's bill will be nearly identical to one that was introduced by Rep. James Leach, R-Iowa, in November 2005. Leach's office has stated that the two legislators worked together in drafting the bills.
Leach's bill, The Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (HR 4411), is scheduled for review by the House Financial Services Committee this week. The committee is chaired by Rep. Michael G. Oxley, R-Ohio, who has also been one of the fiercest opponents of online gambling for the last 10 years.
Last month America's major sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, NCAA) wrote to each House representative to urge support for Leach's bill.
Kyl/Goodlatte Speculation Reaches Frenzy
by Bradley Vallerius
It is anticipated that within the week Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., may attempt to attach an online gambling prohibition bill to a larger bill aimed at lobbying reform. It seems likely that Sen. Kyl's legislation will be nearly identical to the prohibition bill introduced by Rep. James Leach, R-Iowa, in November 2005, which also happens to be scheduled to appear before the House Financial Services Committee this week.
Following revelations in October 2005 that lobbyist Jack Abramoff-- who has since pleaded guilty to a number of federal offenses--worked to defeat a bill in the House of Representatives in 2000, online gambling prohibition has been a primary target for Republicans wishing to distance themselves from the Abramoff scandals.
Sen. Kyl's attempt to attach online gambling legislation as an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill proved unsuccessful in September 2005 after the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee objected to the attachment on the grounds that it constituted general legislation on an appropriations bill and was therefore out of order.
But with the subject of the impending bill being lobbying reform and reparations, Kyl's amendment has a slimmer chance of being rejected this time.
"This would demonstrate that not only are we changing the mechanisms [of lobbying], here is one tangible result," Kyl told the Wall Street Journal. "Jack Abramoff is not going to have his way now."
The reason for such broad and renewed support in the fight against online gambling is because lawmakers want to "show some separation between them and him," said Rep. Goodlatte, who was the chief sponsor of the defeated 2000 bill. Since introducing HR 4777 (The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act) on Feb. 16, Goodlatte has already obtained over 100 co-sponsors.
Even Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Tex., the man whose aid received $50,000 via payments to his wife from Abramoff, is reported to support Goodlatte's bill. It has been widely reported that the very same aid, Tony Rudy, assisted in putting the 2000 bill on the suspension calendar, which requires bills to obtain two-thirds approval in the House, rather than a majority.
Mike Connolly, a spokesperson for DeLay, told the Wall Street Journal that DeLay opposed the bill in 2000 because it contained too many exemptions.
Goodlatte's prohibitory model differs from that of Kyl in that Goodlatte's bill would update the Wire Act to clarify that all unauthorized forms of gambling conducted by any remote means are illegal, while Kyl's bill seeks to eliminate the use of credit cards and other financial instruments to pay for online gambling services.
It is thought that Kyl's bill will be nearly identical to one that was introduced by Rep. James Leach, R-Iowa, in November 2005. Leach's office has stated that the two legislators worked together in drafting the bills.
Leach's bill, The Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (HR 4411), is scheduled for review by the House Financial Services Committee this week. The committee is chaired by Rep. Michael G. Oxley, R-Ohio, who has also been one of the fiercest opponents of online gambling for the last 10 years.
Last month America's major sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, NCAA) wrote to each House representative to urge support for Leach's bill.
