|
friend and I had an argument recently about the legality of home
poker touraments. This agrument eventually turned into a debate about
what really is illegal. I'm hoping some of you legally smart folks can
help us out. Who is right? This somewhat long, but interesting
conversation is below. Enjoy.
Ryan
--------------------
Ryan Says:
it's funny that everyone thinks the home poker touraments at [name
removed] house are legal.
Friend Says:
it is legal in MN
Friend Says:
that article was about Chicago
Ryan Says:
it's illegal in MN too
Friend Says:
nope
Ryan Says:
yep
Friend Says:
as long as its not held in a public place or there is not a rake, its
legal
Ryan Says:
wrong. where did you get that?
Friend Says:
the mn law website
Friend Says:
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/alcgamb/gamenf/gamenf.html
Ryan Says:
yeah, it says on that page that it's illegal
Friend Says:
where?
Ryan Says:
the entire definition of illegal gambling... also, you can see...
Illegal types of gambling include activities where participants pay to
play for the chance of winning something of value in games such as
blackjack, dice, roulette or poker
Friend Says:
there are acceptions
Friend Says:
exceptions
Friend Says:
if you read through it
Ryan Says:
i've read the state law already, carefully because i was looking for
ways to make money on the poker craze. it's illegal
Friend Says:
no its not
Friend Says:
its illegal to make money on it...ie rake
Friend Says:
http://www.twincitiespoker.com/minnesota_poker_law.htm
Ryan Says:
The auther of the page must not have even read the statute... [name
removed]'s games certainly violate the following if nothing else. (3)
the sum of all prizes awarded for each tournament or contest does not
exceed $200.
Friend Says:
depends on how many people show up
Ryan Says:
usually there are more then 20, and almost always there are rebuys, i'm
guessing every monthly tourament was illegal there. [Note: the buy-in
at these games is $20, the rebuy is an additional $20]
Friend Says:
probably not at the beginning
Friend Says:
or the side tournaments
Ryan Says:
true. but, the main game is illegal.
Friend Says:
only under some circumstances
Ryan Says:
?Friend Says:
only if enough people show up
Ryan Says:
they're illegal becaue the pot is alway more then 200
Ryan Says:
these days
Ryan Says:
recently
Ryan Says:
and consistently
Friend Says:
they maybe theoretically illegal but not practically illegal
Ryan Says:
ha ha ha ha ha
Friend Says:
like those old arcane laws that don't you were green on sundays
Friend Says:
stuff that maybe illegal in the books but they don't get persued
Ryan Says:
regardless. the question was if it was illegal. and it is. i don't
think it's likely to ever get busted... but that wasn't the
point
Friend Says:
and i implied that the spirit of the tournament is not illegal
Friend Says:
this law is on the MN books "A person may not cross state lines with a
duck atop his head."
Friend Says:
is it really illegal...no
Ryan Says:
yes it is
Ryan Says:
if it's against the law it's illegal
Friend Says:
no, because if you go to court , will you get convicted for it?
Friend Says:
nopee
Ryan Says:
not to mention, this isn't some arcane law relating to ducks... they
explicitly addressed card touraments and specifically specified 200 as
a max for lawful gambling... further, you don't have to be convited for
something for it to be illegal. your logic is horrible.
Ryan Says:
but, i guess that's better then admiting you're wrong.
Friend Says:
my logic is sound...if you are caught doing that particular act, and
you were brought to court, would you ever get in trouble for it, and
the answer is no..and that is what i define whether something is
illegal or not
Friend Says:
whether or not something is in the books
Ryan Says:
you incorrect on your definition of illegal in a desparate attempt to
not admit you were wrong.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=illegal
Friend Says:
your link does not resolve anything
Friend Says:
the written laws are guidelines, and whether something is illegal or
not depends on the interpretation of some type of legal
arbitrator.
Friend Says:
of said written law
Ryan Says:
"(3) the sum of all prizes awarded for each tournament or contest does
not exceed $200." I'm pretty sure that the interpriation of this line
won't be screwed up.
Ryan Says:
by your argument, murder is not illegal, speeding is not illegal, rape
is not illegal, stealling is not illegal.
Friend Says:
the judge can take that to mean the equivalent of 200$ of when the law
was written...or something else similar
Friend Says:
by my argument, most judges will tell you that muder is illegal
Friend Says:
a judge can even say that the law written itself is illegal!
Friend Says:
which has happen many of times
Ryan Says:
murder isn't illegal?
Friend Says:
i'm not sure what you are getting at....there is a written saying thats
illegal, and if you commit murder beyond a shadow of the doubt, most
judges will convict you
Friend Says:
hence by my argument, it is illegal
Ryan Says:
i'm demonstrating how incorrect your argument is. if it is against the
written law, it is illegal.
Ryan Says:
murder is illegal because a law says you can't kill poeple
Ryan Says:
not because you will get convicted for it
Friend Says:
what i'm saying it has to be against the interpretation of a judge of a
written law
Ryan Says:
if you for somereason got off the hook, like OJ, that doen't make
murder not illegal.
Ryan Says:
murder is defined by the law illegal
Friend Says:
i'm not arguing that tecnicalities doesn't make something illegal
legal...i'm arguing that the written law is not the final say of whats
legal or not
Friend Says:
and the most obvious demostration is that some written laws are deemed
illegal
Ryan Says:
so, murder might be okay
Ryan Says:
becaue the law could be deemed illegal
Friend Says:
not generally...because pretty much all intrepretations with the
written law dealing with murder is probably close
Ryan Says:
of course the law that deemed the law illegal could be deemed illegal,
so you can't count on that.
Friend Says:
nope you can't count on it
Ryan Says:
"(3) the sum of all prizes awarded for each tournament or contest does
not exceed $200." <- extremely explicite and clear that a pot bigger
then 200 is illegal.
Friend Says:
a judge can easily determine that 200 is too low
Friend Says:
and no judge will convict us of illegal gambling
Ryan Says:
judges need a strong reason to over turn a law... any judge would agree
that it is illegal. independent of if we are convicted.
Ryan Says:
illegal != convition
Friend Says:
your definition of illegal is pretty limited in scope. It rests solely
what is written in the books...mine rests on reality
Ryan Says:
your definition says "murder isn't illegal"
Friend Says:
in most cases it is, because the judges will probably send you to
jail
Ryan Says:
i'll just forward this conversation to a few people and we'll see what
they think.
Friend Says:
if you do something and you tell the judges and cops that you do it,
and nothing happens to you, then it is not i
|
| |
| |
treacheroust wrote:
A friend and I had an argument recently about the legality of home
poker touraments. This agrument eventually turned into a debate about
what really is illegal. I'm hoping some of you legally smart folks can
help us out. Who is right? This somewhat long, but interesting
conversation is below. Enjoy.
Ryan
What he's doing is charging to be in the tournament.
That part may be illegal.
What is legal in most states, is when you have a small group, playning penny
ante poker.
What's not legal is offering any type of "jackpot" for the winner.
Which is the age old argument between poker players and bingo players.
If it's not legal for poker, why is it legal for bingo?
Because in bingo, you buy the card, which you do not have to play.
|
| |
| |
|
