Pennsylvania electronic pull-tabs are the focus of a renewed appeal from James “Jim” Brown, state commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of Pennsylvania. In a September 3 opinion column, Brown urged lawmakers to change charitable-gaming law as veterans' organizations confront uncertainty surrounding skill-game revenue.
The Times Leader column argues for allowing electronic pull-tabs under the state's small-games-of-chance framework. Brown presents the change as a way to support veteran and fraternal organizations and their community activities. His piece is an advocacy statement, not an announcement that the legislature has authorized electronic pull-tabs.
Brown also expresses concern about the effect of the skill-games court decision on club finances. This report does not independently verify revenue projections or predict which organizations would close or expand under a particular policy.
The court ruling and the proposed remedy are different subjects
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's June 15 opinion addressed the skill-game devices in the POM and Three Devices appeals, reversing the Commonwealth Court orders. It stayed its order for 120 days and limited adverse enforcement action taken in reliance on that opinion during the stay.
That ruling is background to Brown's argument. It is not an electronic-pull-tab statute, and the September column does not transform it into one. A proposed change to charitable gaming and a proposed licensing system for skill machines would need to be assessed on their own terms.
Senator Gene Yaw is pursuing the latter discussion through SB 1079. Our report on his September 8 legislative appeal distinguishes that advocacy from the bill's recorded status.
What the existing Revenue guidance describes
The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue's small-games-of-chance resource page directs readers to the framework for eligible organizations and club licensees, manufacturer registration, distributor licensing and reporting. Those administrative resources are the appropriate starting point for identifying the rules that apply to a particular activity.
In its club-reporting FAQ, the department describes a pull-tab as a game piece made entirely of paper or paper products, with concealed numbers or symbols exposed by the player to determine the result. Readers should preserve that description when comparing it with a proposal for electronic products.
The department's electronic reporting facilities serve a filing function. Their existence is not evidence that a club may operate any electronic game it chooses. Likewise, a nonprofit purpose does not identify the permissions applicable to every device or game.
What would demonstrate an actual change
For clubs assessing a future proposal, the useful evidence would be the bill text and action history, followed by any enacted law and agency implementation. Particular questions include which organizations qualify, which products are allowed, how suppliers are regulated and when any changes take effect.
Those are questions to answer from official materials once available, not terms supplied by this article. A vendor's sales description should identify the legal provision on which it relies and the actual equipment or product being offered. Our vendor diligence guide offers a method for organizing that evidence.
Brown's September column adds a veterans' organization perspective to the policy debate. The development is his call for legislation. Readers should look for recorded legislative action before treating the proposed electronic-pull-tab reform as an operating option.
Sources checked September 9, 2026. Produced with AI assistance and checked against the cited materials. This is editorial information, not a legal opinion on a particular machine or business.