... as my little tar baby!

John, please reread my early posts on this subject. The problem with the HPA as written is the attempt to list the covered items. If they had omitted the list and just said "original numismatic items" were covered, then no list would be necessary and your expert testimony would be admissible to show what was covered. Or, if they had said, "... includes but is not limited to ..."

Creation of a separate clause which says that the act applies to "gambling collectibles and memorabilia" would be all that was needed -- and then YOU could be called as an expert witness to testify whether some particular item was a "gambling collectible" or "gambling memorabilia". When statutes are written in general terms, absolute specificity is not necessary (though of course it leaves the statute open to interpretation which some people may or may not find satisfactory). It's only when the legislature tries to BE specific that they'd better succeed at it.

>> Do we know of an easier way out by simply asking if the way the
>> HPA is now written would include casino chips? Perhaps under TOKENS?

Exactly WHO are you going to ask this question of, John? In our system of laws, there is only one person who can answer it -- the judge hearing the case.

>> Do we have any idea as to the amount of time, effort
>> and club $$$$ it would take to lobby in hopes to get
>> "casino chips" added to the Hobby Protection Act?

Nope. Which is exactly why I said I'd inquire. If the time, effort and cost involved would be excessive, then I'd say don't do it.