backtop


Print 26 comment(s) - last by xti.. on Feb 27 at 6:36 PM

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


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

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 Manch on 2/26/2013 11:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget Louisiana. They raise there drinking age to 21 after the threat of losing federal funding for their highways in 96


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 Manch on 2/26/2013 10:59:32 AM , Rating: 2
name them.


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.


RE: I Don't Understand
By theapparition on 2/25/2013 12:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
Not anywhere near the truth. That attitude is exactly why Republicans keep losing.

The party needs someone electable. Shilling for the hard core party liners will get you nowhere real fast.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki