A South Carolina Senate committee voted 15-6 in favor of legalizing home card and dice games, so long as the operator does not take a share of the winnings.  (Query whether the operator may charge admission, in effect, legalizing cardrooms.  I’m trying to find the current wording of the proposed legislation to see if this loophole was closed.)  The full Senate must approve the bill before it can become law.  When the Senate will hear the matter has yet to be determined.

South Carolina and Virginia are two of the too many states that still criminalize the home poker game.  (Though, really, how worried are you that a Statie is going to break down a Charleston door and arrest grandpa?)  Legislation was on the tables that would have pushed the needles in each state toward legalization. (Virginia’s would have gone as far as to declare poker a game of skill.)  Sadly, both states quashed the attempts indefinitely.  Back to square one.

Argument in South Carolina before the state Supreme Court over whether poker is illegal gambling took an unexpected turnwhen prosecutors reversed their stance and conceded that casual poker, such as the penny ante home game, is not illegal gambling.  The state still holds that organized gambling for profit is illegal.  The turn of events is designed to make the state’s previous argument — that all poker is illegal — look less farcical.  South Carolina is hoping that by focusing on the particular acts at hand in the immediate case, and the more “seriously” organized games generally, it can convince the Supreme Court that at least certain forms of poker should be deemed illegal.

This appears to be a dangerous strategy.  Where do you draw the line between casual and non-casual?  Is conceding that some forms of poker are legal detrimental to the broader argument?  By conceding that the penny ante home game is legal, is the state ultimately conceding that all poker is legal?  Related, it is fair to assume that the players are more skilled in the higher limit, more organized games.  If this is so, then the state effectively is arguing that the games with more “skill” are the ones that should be illegal while the all-in non-skill friendly fests are legal.  Strange.  Valid?  We should have the answers fairly soon.

As reported previously, South Carolina looked to be passing legislation that would relax its strict anti-gambling laws.  And by strict, I mean arrest Grannie and deny her spare Depends when she’s in the pen strict.  But, no.  The South Carolina legislature instead intentionally let pass the deadline to approve legislation that would have allowed home poker games of the ole $20 buy-in/take Uncle Pervis’ beer money (as well as other “controversial” legislation, such as the distance from home one can drive a golf cart).  What’s next?  A bill to see if a witch can float in boiling oil?

South Carolina has some old school laws.  Though one fewer now.  (Or at least in the near future.)  South Carolina is on the verge of taking the “progressive” step of ending its prohibition against small-scale gambling games, like Sorry and Monopoly.  Now I really want a hotel on Boardwalk.