 |
JOIN THE COMMITTEE ONLINE!
FREE FOR ALL BUSINESS LAW MEMBERS
|
|
Editorial Board:
Gabriel S. Galanda
Committee Chair
Williams Kastner
William Gantz
Co-Chair, Subcommittee on Publications
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
Robert Stocker
Co-Chair, Subcommittee on Publications
Dickinson Wright PLLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message from the Co-Chair
|
| |
by Bob Stocker
Co-chair, Publications Subcommittee
The ABA Gaming Law Subcommittee's Publication Committee has launched a quarterly gaming
law column designed to permit committee members to publish articles on timely gaming
issues facing both the commercial gaming industry and Indian Country gaming. The current
issue features four articles prepared by individuals well known within the gaming industry.
Kevin Quigley has written an article dealing with the current views of the BIA regarding the
land in trust issues in Indian Country. This is a controversial issue that has been an
extremely hot topic of debate in Washington and throughout the country, particularly in
California. The latest salvo has been the publication of final rules by the Department of
Interior outlining the process that the Department will follow in handling land in trust
applications relating to gaming on trust lands acquired after October 17, 1988. The final
regulations address applications seeking to utilize the exceptions outlined in section 2719
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701-2721. These final rules can be found at
pages 29354-29380 in the May 20, 2008 edition of the Federal Register.
John Roberts has written an in depth article discussing the efforts of the California Gambling
Control Commission, one of the two state agencies charged with overseeing California's Indian
gaming industry, to expand its oversight of California's Indian casinos via proposed regulatory
standard CGCC-8.
Two articles by Sue McNabb addressing problem gaming are also included in this issue. The first
deals with the efforts of regulators and the gaming industry to address problem gamers. The second
outlines the tragedies that can occur if problem gamers are not identified and properly dealt with.
Combined, these two articles present a compelling picture of the problems created for the gaming
industry by compulsive gamblers and a compendium of the ways in which this important issue is being
addressed by the industry and its regulators.
All members of the ABA Gaming Law Subcommittee are encouraged to write substantive articles on gaming
issues for the committee's quarterly publication. Articles should be emailed to Gabe Galanda, the
subcommittee Chair, who will then pass them on to the Publication Committee for review and editing.
Gabe's email address is ggalanda@williamskastner.com.
back to top ↑
|
|
|
|
|
Featured Articles
|
| |
New BIA Policy Concerning "Off-Reservation" Gaming Lands Acquisitions
Tom Foley and Kevin QuigleyOn January 3, 2008, Carl Artman, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior of Indian Affairs, issued new "guidance" to the BIA regional directors and Office of Indian Gaming staff which is to be used in determining whether to take "off-reservation" land into trust for gaming purposes pursuant to IGRA (hereinafter "2008 off-reservation gaming lands acquisition policy"). The new 2008 off-reservation gaming lands acquisition policy has been highly anticipated by both the Indian gaming industry interested in getting some clarity to the manner the BIA uses to decide gaming lands acquisition applications; and by state, local and federal officials concerned about the alleged spread of "reservation shopping" by some Indian tribes which in the view of those officials is inconsistent with the intent of IGRA.
The BIA's manner of determining gaming lands acquisition applications has been under fire for many years because: (1) it has appeared to result in inconsistent determinations for "similar" requests, (2) has resulted in an informal "moratorium" on such requests while the BIA has tried to establish a policy it believes will satisfy certain political interests and Washington policy makers, and (3) been in the view of many in the Indian gaming industry devoid of any rationale basis or mooring in federal law.
More...
CGCC-8, NIGC or What?
John Roberts
In October 2006, a federal appeals court upheld two lower court rulings that declared the National Indian Gaming
Commission did not have the authority to regulate class III gaming in tribal casinos. This case was brought by the
Colorado River Indian Tribes and is known as the CRIT decision. This decision has created an issue in California as the
California Gambling Control Commission, one of the two state agencies overseeing tribal gaming, has declared it will
fill the "void" in regulatory oversight created by the CRIT decision. This is important for California because earlier
tribal-state compacts cited the federal MICS, not a state MICS. This "void" now leaves the state, according to the CGCC,
in the position of establishing MICS with the tribes. A March 2, 2007 letter from Gambling Control Commission Chairman
Dean Shelton to tribal gaming leaders stated - The CRIT decision, "altered the regulatory landscape for tribal
gaming in California." Subsequently the CGCC has put forth a proposed set of regulations known as CGCC 8. The current
debate raging in California gaming now centers around CGCC 8 which attempts to put the state in the position formerly
held by NIGC as related to the oversight of tribal gaming regulation.
More...
Gambling and Risk Taking
Sue McNabbThe Louisiana Civil Code contains an article that states:
A hope may be the object of a contract of sale. Thus, a fisherman may
sell a haul of his net before he throws it. In that case the buyer is
entitled to whatever is caught in the net, according to the parties'
expectations, and even if nothing is caught the sale is valid.
La. Civil Code article 2451
It is this hope, this expectation of catching the big win that fuels gambling.
The majority of gamblers "buy" the chance with their bets
and "if nothing is caught," they eventually quit. But the addicted
gambler cannot stop. He will often chase one bet with another and another
until all his resources are depleted.
A famous gambler once said that he only lost one dollar gambling but spent
another six million trying to get it back.
More...
Responsible and Reasonable
Sue McNabbThe Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "entertainment" as an "amusement" or "diversion."
Gaming in the United States exceeds all other forms of entertainment combined, with revenue in excess of fifty
billion dollars. The primary objective of Responsible Gaming programs is to keep gaming within the parameters of
"amusement" by providing a safety net. Responsible Gaming programs are often a result of legislative
requirements that are attached to the gaming regulatory statutes and rules in the various gaming jurisdictions.
Most jurisdictions establish responsible gaming regulations when gaming is legalized in the jurisdiction; others
enact the legislation subsequent to the legalization of gaming within the jurisdiction. Most programs evolve as
a result of the three major prongs of responsible gaming development: regulatory compliance, changes in technology,
and the internal commitment of the casino licensees.
More...
back to top ↑
|
|
|
|
|
Gaming Law Committee Homepage
|
|
|
