[hasasnn2345tv]

play russian roulette - you always have the right for that gambling equipment, dont you ?

[SkeniaInhilla]

if you wanna gamble, go to Mexico... everything is legal down there, its the American way



sorry, that was Uncle Jimbo from South Park

[jstizzle]

How would any constitutional issue raised here be different than that which could equivalently be raised regarding the possession of drug paraphernalia?

[SoftrermaBioniaSat]

Originally posted by Darius871
I guess theoretically you could argue that banning the mere equipment, even when used only for entertainment and with no money involved, is an arbitrary broad-sword method that doesn't rationally relate to the legitimate state goal of eliminating the social ill of compulsive gambling, in which case the deprivation of liberty might be so extreme as to violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, but that's a gigantic stretch My point is to ask if this is any different than the exact same argument raised by banning drug paraphernalia.

[Bridgester]

dp

[tq4F7YKs]

Can you picture anyone smoking tobacco out of this? Me neither, and yet I could walk down the block to The Last Place on Earth and legally buy 50 of them if I wanted to:

[Vomekayafboke]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
ere equipment, even when used only for entertainment and with no money involved, is an arbitrary broad-sword method that doesn't rationally relate to the legitimate state goal of eliminating the social ill of compulsive gambling

But it still is intended to be used for gambling. It may not be exactly used for gambling with money, but it definitely can continue an addiction or begin an addiction that will be realized later. After all, there isn't a "this is just for tobacco use" type of defense here. Playing for free can also further the addiction. Looking at drug paraphernalia can further the addiction

[Caliwany]

Equipment which may be used for the purposes of gambling cannot be banned if they have other uses which do not involve gambling.

Your argument needs to be that tire irons can be used for assault, but that doesn't mean that the simple possession of a tire iron necessarily leads to assault. You cannot ban the tire iron outright because it has legitimate and lawful uses.

Same with gaming equipment. You can use it to gamble, or heaven forbid, play super mario.

Now, what they can do is confiscate equipment in the process of breaking the law. If you were to use gaming equipment to gamble, then the law could confiscate that equipment.

[parurorges]

Originally posted by Darius871
Can you picture anyone smoking tobacco out of this? Me neither, and yet I could walk down the block to The Last Place on Earth and legally buy 50 of them if I wanted to:

Our you can just make on with a propane torch ($8.95 at Walmart) and a tube of car air freshener.

[HakTaisanip]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't think that the law is close to as clear cut as you portray it. Ashcroft infamously (successfully) prosecuted Tommy Chong for selling bongs over the interwebs (which is a federal crime if it's interstate traffic).

Government at all levels simply have a lot of discretion in this sort of thing. The real question is what Connecticut precedent says... Oh definitely once there's unequivocal interstate commerce is involved all bets are off. In fact Raich made abundantly clear that even the subclass of legalized noncommercial intrastate cultivation of marijuana falls under federal interstate commerce regulation because Congress "might" rationally conclude that A) the potential of its being "diverted" into the illicit market and B) its alteration of supply/demand patterns would both have a sufficiently "substantial effect" on the interstate market regulated by the larger statutory scheme.

That same reasoning (only 3 years old) could probably be used to justify prosecuting purely local bong shops under the same federal regulations used against Chong, so the only real question is whether they'll bother to devote resources to that. Hopefully his case was just an anomaly because it was clearly 100% interstate, he was a celebrity they'd want to make an example of, and his public persona was deeply associated with the marijuana subculture, but considering the DEA's constant struggle to justify its own existence, my bet is they start expanding their reach beyond that anomaly.

[economex]

Huh. We used to have a casino party at Trinity too. I guess that's toast too.

-Arrian

[bunkalapa]

Actually, I don't give a ****. I don't like gambling*.

Now, you can make the case that this is about FREEDOM! and so I should fight the good fight. If it was put to a vote, I'd vote in favor of FREEDOM!, but I'm not going to actively campaign to change the law some colleges can have their casino parties back.

-Arrian

* - hypocrisy of saying this whilst investing in the stock market duly noted.

[StincPriene]

True. Which makes it even dumber. WTF, my state?

I still don't really care, though. Sue me.

-Arrian