User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 4:42:04 PM EDT
[#1]
Ugh.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 4:43:04 PM EDT
[#2]
All or none
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 4:44:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everyone should be able to build a casino wherever it is zoned for business. This. I'd be fine with zoning certain areas for "Gaming" but ANYONE with the bucks and ability meet gaming regulations should be able to build one in those areas. It is nothing short of a crime that certain parties get special concessions to build casinos. In Detroit, they gave concessions to three politically connected companies to build three casinos. They've built a nice little oligopoly for themselves. Competition? Ha! The table limits in Detroit typically start at $15 and go up from there. Only in the absence of any meaningful competition could you set up a casino and charge the poorest and dumbest folks in the country $15 a hand to play Blackjack. I've seen lower limits at the Bellagio in Vegas. 
And it's not like they put all three casinos in a gaming district. They basically carved up the town into three pieces and put enough distance between the three of them to keep competition to a bare minimum. I've never seen a more deliberate and calculated "cash extraction" scheme against the citizens of a city and ultimately the taxpayer, as most of those people are on benefits, in my life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 4:46:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Allowing exemptions to some removes the incentive to fix the law. Allow them or don't. No picking and choosing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 5:15:50 PM EDT
[#5]
It should also be noted that normally this is not something that comes up for a vote. The pact is negotiated like a treaty between the tribe and the State of California by the Governor. No popular input is involved. The only reason this is on the ballot is because a couple of tribes in adjacent regions did not want the competition for their casinos and ran a successful signature campaign to get their proposition on the ballot. Another reason why I voted for it. I'm not a fan of businesses using the state to quash competition.
Normally I'd agree that casinos should be allowed everywhere in the State, but at least we get something with Indian casinos rather than nothing. I'm sure that eventually there'll be enough support to change the laws so that the Indians aren't the only ones to do this (and I'm sure they'll try to block it, perhaps using the initiative method like in this case). Until then I'll take what we can get. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 5:18:15 PM EDT
[#6]
No. The agreement is to build on their land. If they can build off of reservations the others should be allowed to as well.
Quoted:
Quoted:
California Prop 48. A yes vote would allow the indians to build a vegas style casino about 40 miles outside of the their reservation and exempt the project from certain state EPA regs. Its supported by Govenor Brown & the construction industry. Its opposed by Senator Feinstein, farmers, wall street and Indian tribes with existing casino's. What say the hive? IIRC they negotiated for this because the size of their reservation means they can't accommodate a casino on it, unlike many of the other tribes. Voted in favour on that account. That is there problem then. If their land is too small then they just can't have certain things. I have no problem giving them rights if it was negotiated in a treaty, but if their land can't handle it we don't need to expand their land or give more exceptions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 5:20:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The agreement is to build on their land. If they can build off of reservations the others should be allowed to as well. As I understand it, this was a special case due to the limited size of their reservation which was negotiated with the governor. If it wasn't for competing tribes not wanting the competition, there would be no vote on this and it would just be what it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 5:23:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I understand it, this was a special case due to the limited size of their reservation which was negotiated with the governor. If it wasn't for competing tribes not wanting the competition, there would be no vote on this and it would just be what it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. The agreement is to build on their land. If they can build off of reservations the others should be allowed to as well. As I understand it, this was a special case due to the limited size of their reservation which was negotiated with the governor. If it wasn't for competing tribes not wanting the competition, there would be no vote on this and it would just be what it is. "Tough shit" would be my response. The whole Indian Casino thing was something they were supposed to be able to do because of their sovereignty on their land, not because of our sovereignty on ours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 5:23:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Tough shit" would be my response. The whole Indian Casino thing something they are supposed to be able to do because of their sovereignty on their land, not because of our sovereignty on ours. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. The agreement is to build on their land. If they can build off of reservations the others should be allowed to as well. As I understand it, this was a special case due to the limited size of their reservation which was negotiated with the governor. If it wasn't for competing tribes not wanting the competition, there would be no vote on this and it would just be what it is. "Tough shit" would be my response. The whole Indian Casino thing something they are supposed to be able to do because of their sovereignty on their land, not because of our sovereignty on ours. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 5:26:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Nay.
In CA and own farmland? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 5:28:27 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Tough shit" would be my response. The whole Indian Casino thing was something they were supposed to be able to do because of their sovereignty on their land, not because of our sovereignty on ours. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. The agreement is to build on their land. If they can build off of reservations the others should be allowed to as well. As I understand it, this was a special case due to the limited size of their reservation which was negotiated with the governor. If it wasn't for competing tribes not wanting the competition, there would be no vote on this and it would just be what it is. "Tough shit" would be my response. The whole Indian Casino thing was something they were supposed to be able to do because of their sovereignty on their land, not because of our sovereignty on ours. I'm having a tough time caring about those who complain about it not being on the reservation (they do own that piece of land, however; used to be tribal land IIRC). The governor negotiated this in good faith and the only reason it's on the ballot is because some people like using the government to quash competition. I have no sympathy for the latter whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 5:44:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does this tribe have a reservation? A lot of them don't. We have tribes here that don't have a reservation, but have casinos. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Everyone should be able to build a casino wherever it is zoned for business. This would only allow one tribe to do so. Came here to post this. Snoqualmie for one. IMO, if they can have full blown casino's, why cant' us cracka's? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 5:46:15 PM EDT
[#13]
If Feinswire is opposed I support it no matter what
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 6:05:45 PM EDT
[#14]
Local to me, tribe bought a building not on reservation and opened casino, but within part of the state that is ceded treaty lands from the 1800's. State ordered casino shut down. Tribe went to federal court and filed suit. Federal court over ruled the state and decided tribe could open casino.
The land in question, most of the northern 2/3rds of the state was Indian land by treaty, the tribe gave up the land under treaty but included in the treaty was certain uses that were never ceded by the tribes such as hunting, fishing, gathering rights. I guess you could look at it as gambling was one of the rights not ceded as they are fishing for money and gathering it in at the gaming business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 6:08:25 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't have any reservations about this. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 6:09:14 PM EDT
[#16]
"Indina"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 6:12:04 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
same rules for everyone. Yeah! Starting 200 years ago! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 6:17:06 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm having a tough time caring about those who complain about it not being on the reservation (they do own that piece of land, however; used to be tribal land IIRC). The governor negotiated this in good faith and the only reason it's on the ballot is because some people like using the government to quash competition. I have no sympathy for the latter whatsoever. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. The agreement is to build on their land. If they can build off of reservations the others should be allowed to as well. As I understand it, this was a special case due to the limited size of their reservation which was negotiated with the governor. If it wasn't for competing tribes not wanting the competition, there would be no vote on this and it would just be what it is. "Tough shit" would be my response. The whole Indian Casino thing was something they were supposed to be able to do because of their sovereignty on their land, not because of our sovereignty on ours. I'm having a tough time caring about those who complain about it not being on the reservation (they do own that piece of land, however; used to be tribal land IIRC). The governor negotiated this in good faith and the only reason it's on the ballot is because some people like using the government to quash competition. I have no sympathy for the latter whatsoever. I definitely feel you from that perspective. My "tough shit" attitude is on a different level and irrespective of other tribe's attempts to limit competition. I'd be in favor of giving ALL of them the "tough shit" attitude. I wouldn't spend a dime of taxpayer money to build roads to their casinos and I wouldn't budge on a fraction of an acre of U.S. territory for them to put a casino in a more advantageous location than the land they already held. Enabling regional gaming monopolies is not what our country had in mind when we signed the treaties and passed the laws that created the reservations. I like gambling probably even more than the next guy but the second gaming operates on U.S. soil or with the help of our tax dollars, it should be done so on a level playing field where ANYONE can participate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 6:17:31 PM EDT
[#19]
Why not? The Seneca Nation built a big casino in downtown Niagara Falls. It seemed to really improve the area, which was previously.... seedy, to be generous.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:00:49 PM EDT
[#20]
To be BIA approved, it would have to be built on federally restricted Indian trust land. California can approve it til the cows come home, but the feds have to approve it. At least thats how it is here. Indians can't do shit without federal approval, especially when it comes to making money.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:06:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not? The Seneca Nation built a big casino in downtown Niagara Falls. It seemed to really improve the area, which was previously.... seedy, to be generous. I'm pretty sure they were allowed to do this because its in the boundary of their original reservation area, or the state cut a deal when the tribes won that land settlement a few years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:08:03 PM EDT
[#22]
"I'm a special liberal snowflake. Anything I do should be exempt from any regulations at all. In fact, it should be a feel good free for all."
I want to say that to the Game Warden 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:10:09 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To be BIA approved, it would have to be built on federally restricted Indian trust land. California can approve it til the cows come home, but the feds have to approve it. At least thats how it is here. Indians can't do shit without federal approval, especially when it comes to making money. I remember a tribe in Kansas tried to do the same thing but the feds wouldn't approve it. Here they have gambling on the reservations, but there is gambling everywhere so they have competition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:10:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does this tribe have a reservation? A lot of them don't. We have tribes here that don't have a reservation, but have casinos. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Everyone should be able to build a casino wherever it is zoned for business. This would only allow one tribe to do so. We don't have them here either. What we do have are checkerboards of federally restricted Indian land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:11:48 PM EDT
[#25]
what's an indina casino?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:13:42 PM EDT
[#26]
No special snowflake laws.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:13:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember a tribe in Kansas tried to do the same thing but the feds wouldn't approve it. Here they have gambling on the reservations, but there is gambling everywhere so they have competition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To be BIA approved, it would have to be built on federally restricted Indian trust land. California can approve it til the cows come home, but the feds have to approve it. At least thats how it is here. Indians can't do shit without federal approval, especially when it comes to making money. I remember a tribe in Kansas tried to do the same thing but the feds wouldn't approve it. Here they have gambling on the reservations, but there is gambling everywhere so they have competition. There is a tribe in Oklahoma attempting to get approval to build one south of Wichita. They already have one in Kansas City, KS, because they had originally had a settlement there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:14:13 PM EDT
[#28]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:16:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a tribe in Oklahoma attempting to get approval to build one south of Wichita. They already have one in Kansas City, KS, because they had originally had a settlement there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To be BIA approved, it would have to be built on federally restricted Indian trust land. California can approve it til the cows come home, but the feds have to approve it. At least thats how it is here. Indians can't do shit without federal approval, especially when it comes to making money. I remember a tribe in Kansas tried to do the same thing but the feds wouldn't approve it. Here they have gambling on the reservations, but there is gambling everywhere so they have competition. There is a tribe in Oklahoma attempting to get approval to build one south of Wichita. They already have one in Kansas City, KS, because they had originally had a settlement there. That may be the one I am thinking of but it was north of Wichita in Park City. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:16:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Correct me if I am wrong. If a tribe buys land and then has that land designated part of the reservation, albeit non contiguous with the rest of the Res, how is it that it is not Indian Land?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:18:07 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Part of me says this stinks of crony capitalism, and the other part of me wonders what the downside is. So...I dunno. Corrupt government? Nah, that's way too obvious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:32:21 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Feinswire is opposed I support it no matter what In the end that was what I decided, already voted Yes via permanent absentee ballot. Also, another casino around here (Chukchansi) appears to be closed for the next few months due to a power struggle in their tribe plus many millions in unpaid taxes. I'm going to need another casino buffet around here as all of the others suck. Really, a casino is a sort of voluntary tax paid by gambling addicts and stupid people. Why should I oppose it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 6:08:47 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck all Indian casino exemptions. Here in NM any tribe can open a shitty casino in a fucking tent, make a fortune, and pay hardly any taxes at all on it. Yet the common man cannot open a casino under ANY situation. Fuck that noise. Either casinos are legal state wide and regulated (like Nevada), or they should be illegal. This bullshit of giving Indians special exceptions needs to fucking stop. I personally would love to open a casino (they are almost guaranteed money machines), yet because I am white I am not allowed to. Fuck that shit. Close them all down or let everybody open one. Giant toll at casino entrance. At least as much as the NFA stamps. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 7:11:50 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct answer! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am sick of Indians getting to play by a different set of rules than the rest of us. Could a private company or individual build a casino?? If the answer is no it should be the same for them. Screw all this special treatment bullshit. Correct answer! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2014 7:51:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct me if I am wrong. If a tribe buys land and then has that land designated part of the reservation, albeit non contiguous with the rest of the Res, how is it that it is not Indian Land? They can buy land, then request to have it placed in trust with the federal government(federally restricted Indian land). Just because they buy land does not automatically make it reservation lands. I know of several tribes that have housing areas that are not on trust land, therefore their tribal Police have no jurisdiction on said lands. The Wyandotte Nation has a casino in downtown Kansas City, KS, and the local Police arrest people there when needed. That tells me that that particular property has not been placed in federal trust, because if it were, only the tribe , or the feds would have jurisdiction there. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
