Rep. Sessions introduces bill to clarify UIGEA

[Mousey]

Rep. Peter Sessions [R-TX] H.R. 6663: To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide additional clarification with regard...

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide additional clarification with regard to the implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, and for other purposes.


Full text of bill will be available later on GovTrack

[GGW Laurie]

Rep. Peter Sessions [R-TX] H.R. 6663: To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide additional clarification with regard...

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide additional clarification with regard to the implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, and for other purposes.


Full text of bill will be available later on GovTrack

...arnt they out for summer break or something, seems like i saw something on t.v about break time, if they ever stayed in d.c long enough, they might could get alot of things done for the better of the american people imo.................laurie

[lots0]

Here is an excerpt of the Bill.
This Bill as been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
No guarantee that this Bill will make it out of Committee, so don't get your hopes up.

The last update of this Bill was July 30, the Congress was still in session.

‘(1) except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), no person shall be subject to criminal liability arising out of--

‘(A) the offering, receipt or facilitation of bets or wagers by means of the Internet;

‘(B) financial transactions in connection with or involving the consideration for, or proceeds of, bets or wagers by means of the Internet;

‘(C) the administration, advising, audit, direction, operation, lending, management, marketing or supplying of a business or services involving activities or transactions referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B); or

‘(D) the banking, brokerage, custody, issuance, placement, promotion, sale or transfer of shares or proceeds from a business involving activities or transactions referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C);

‘(2) paragraph (1) shall not apply to any person who knowingly--

‘(A) offered illegal bets or wagers to, or received bets or wagers from, any person within the United States by means of the Internet after October 13, 2006;

‘(B) in violation of section 1084 of title 18, United States Code, used the Internet for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers on any sporting event or sporting contest, or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, by any person within the United States; or

‘(C) processed or facilitated financial transactions in connection with or involving the consideration for, or proceeds of, involving activities or transactions referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B); and

Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6663

[GaryWatson]

The laws mean nothing.

The US have one aim and one aim only, to have a major stake in online gambling. They couldnt give a dam about the moral issues.

They do not care about WTO rulings.

I wonder who they will elect to be the gambling worlds savior?

I just felt like a ramble because they are a law to themselves. They will, and always have done what they want.

[pacers31]

I totally agree Gary. I think the whole issue has to do with eliminating foreign competition for the day that the big US landbased's get in on the action. Once these idiot politicians see how much $$$$ online gaming will bring into the US coffers, I don't think you will hear a word about the "evils of gambling" ever again from these pin heads!!

[Mousey]

Poker groups split on bill

Net betting measure seeks to narrow ban

By TONY BATT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Shelley Berkley
Nevada representative opposes new bill, proposes study of Internet gambling

WASHINGTON -- A new bill that would limit the Internet gambling ban to sports betting while exempting poker and other online wagering is splitting poker advocates.

The Poker Players Alliance, a group that lobbies Congress against the ban, is opposed to the bill. Former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., who is the alliance chairman, said it does nothing to clear up confusion about the definition of unlawful Internet gambling.

But Jay Lakin, vice president of Poker Source Online, supports the measure, which was introduced shortly before Congress adjourned last week for its August recess.

Since Nevada is the only state that allows sports betting, Lakin said, the impact of the ban under the new bill would be minimal.

The Poker Players Alliance has argued the ban does not apply to Internet poker because poker is a legal activity, Lakin said.

So if the alliance supports the new bill and accepts the exemption, he said, it would be like admitting that poker is illegal.

"They're between ...

[lots0]

The study on Internet gambling is a bad idea.
All the US government needs to do is take a look at our friends in the UK. Take a look at the tax receipts the UK collects, the regulation they implement and the problems they have with regulation. No new study by the US government is needed.

The idea of the government studying anything, sets my teeth on edge. How many years has the government been studying the effects of making some drugs illegal (35 years)?? and we still don't have any sensible laws or regulations in US because of all the drug money involved.

Now they want to study online gambling... So maybe in 50 years or so the government study will come up with a few good answers... NOT!

What we need is some action, some relief, some sensible laws put on the books for a change and we need it now, not in 35 or 50 years.

[w8n4win]

I think they write all this 'stuff' so that no one can really understand it, or maybe I am just a dummy.

Can someone explain this to me, in dummy terms!

‘(2) paragraph (1) shall not apply to any person who knowingly--

‘(A) offered illegal bets or wagers to, or received bets or wagers from, any person within the United States by means of the Internet after October 13, 2006;

[lots0]

I am not a lawyer,

The date October 13, 2006 is the date the UGIEA was signed (and it was on a Friday... Friday the 13th.)

I believe (but I could be wrong) that it means anyone that has broken the UGIEA law, as written, after it was signed into law can still be prosecuted after the new law is signed.

So in other words, people that ignore the UGIEA while it is in effect can still be prosecuted after the new law takes effect (if it ever does).

[w8n4win]

I don't think lawyers can even understand half the legal 'stuff' written, I think they just interpet it in thier view and everyone has to believe them because they are the lawyers!

Thanks Lotso!