JUN - 7 1994 

I. Nelson Rose, Esquire 

2075 Marlette Avenue 

Reno, Nevada 89503 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1994, on behalf of Sharp 

Image Electronics, requesting an advisory opinion on whether the 

"Wildfire Pulltab Dispenser Systemtt is a class I1 gaming device. 

For the reasons outlined below, the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC) is of the opinion that the Wildfire gaming 

device is a class I11 gaming device. 

Although your letter did not include any printed materials 

describing the Wildfire gaming device, the NIGC has a copy of a 

promotional manual which explains the features and 

I characteristics of the device. The Wildfire gaming device stores 

1 kiil*lrlf an electronic image of a deal of pull-tabs. Money is inserted 

into the machine and credits are displayed on a light emitting 

diode. As the play button is pressed, credits are decreased by 

one and the next electronic image of a pull-tab stored in the 

cartridge is displayed either on a video screen or spinning 

reels. Signals are sent to a printer in the gaming device which 

prints and dispenses a pull-tab ticket. Once the ticket is 

printed the electronic image of a pull-tab is erased from the 

cartridge. 

It is your contention that because the Wildfire gaming device 

dispenses a pull-tab ticket, it is neither an electronic 

facsimile of the game of pull-tabs nor a gambling device within 

the meaning of the Johnson Act, 15 U.S.C. $j 1171(a). 

In Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. National Indian Gaminq 

Commissio~, 827 F. Supp. 26 (D. D.C. 1993), afftd, 14 F.3d 633 

(D.C. Cir. 1994), both the district court and the court of 

appeals held that video pull-tab games are class I11 electronic 

facsimiles. The Wildfire pull-tab gaming device has the same 

fundamental characteristics as the pull-tab devices described by 

the district court and the court of appeals. 

There is now a computerized version of pull-tabs. The 

computer randomly selects a card for the gambler, pulls 

911~' I' the tab at the gambler's direction, and displays the 

result on the screen. The computer version, like the 
paper version, has a fixed number of winning cards in 

each deal. 

The fact that the Wildfire gaming device also dispenses a piece 

of paper with the identical symbols appearing on the video screen 

or spinning reels does not, in the view of the NIGC, convert the 

Wildfire pull-tab gaming device from an electronic facsimile to 

an electronic aid. The fact that it has the features described 

above makes it an electronic facsimile of the game of pull-tabs. 

Furthermore, we are not convinced that the paper ticket that is 

dispensed by the Wildfire gaming device is in fact a'pull-tab. A 

pull-tab is a paper or plastic ticket containing hidden winning 

or losing combinations of symbols that are revealed to the player 

when physically opened. The ticket dispensed by the Wildfire 

gaming device does not hide the winning or losing combinations of 

symbols and therefore is not physically opened by the player. 

The Cabazon case also involved a challenge to NIGC regulations 

that adopted the Johnson Act definition of a gambling device to 

define electronic facsimile. 25 C.F.R. § 502.8. The district 

court rejected the tribal challenge to section 502.8 stating: 

"This definition is the only definition possible to implement 

Congresst explicit intent, as expressed in IGRA.If 827 F. Supp. 

1 mrr' 

' at 31. The tribal plaintiffs chose not to appeal the district 

courtfs rejection of their challenge to the NIGC1s regulations 

and the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district 

court. 

If Wildfire gaming devices are Ifgambling devicesff within the 

meaning of the Johnson Act, then they fall within class I11 

gaming. Under the Johnson Act, a I1gambling deviceff means in 

pertinent part: 

any other machine or mechanical device ... designed and 

manufactured primarily for use in connection with 

gambling, and (A) which when operated may deliver, as 

the result of the application of an element of chance, 

any money or property, or (B) by the operation of which 

a person may become entitled to receive, as the result 

of the application of an element of chance, any money 

or property ... 

15 U.S.C. § 1171(a)(2). Federal courts have construed the 

definition of a "gambling devicet1 to include electronic video 

gambling machines. United States V, 137 Draw Poker-TYD~ Machines 

& Six Slot Machines, 606 F. Supp. 747, 754 (N.D. Ohio 1984), 

affld without op., 765 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1985) (electronic video 

draw poker machines held to be gambling devices within the , meaning of 15 U.S.C. 5 1171(a)(2)); United States v. Sixteen '~lll~ . 

2 
~lectronic Gamblinq Devices, 603 F. Supp. 32, 34 (D. Haw. 1984) 

-" (electronic video games duplicating casino games such as draw 

poker, blackjack, and keno held to be gambling devices). 

In the view of the NIGC, the Wildfire pull-tab gaming device is a 

gambling device within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. S 1171(a)(2). 

The device is a machine or mechanical device designed and 

manufactured primarily for gambling and that, when operated, may 

entitle a player to receive money as the result of the 

application of an element of chance. The fact that the device 

also dispenses a paper ticket does not exclude the device from 

the definition of a gambling device. 

For all the foregoing reasons, the NIGC is of the opihion that 

the "Wildfire Pulltab Dispenser Systemtt is an electronic 

facsimile and a gambling device and therefore falls within class 

I11 gaming. 

Please advise Sharp Image Electronics and its distributors to 

cease supplying Wildfire gaming devices to Indian tribes in 

states where there are no tribal-state compacts authorizing such 

devices. 

Again, thank you for your interest in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

-4xdu.k;~ 

Anthony J. Hope 

Chairman