>>1) All the candidates for the next CC>CC board of directors have stated that they are against restrictive chapter membership rules. So even if this amendment passes, it will likely be reversed by the incoming board.

The BOD has no authority to reverse an Amendment to the Constitution.

>>>2) This is a hobby, not a business, and it should be open to all regardless of their personal level of commitment to the hobby.

What does this have to do with the issue? Membership in the CCGTCC is open to all who meet the relatively loose requirments. The suggestion that the Amendment is exclusive as opposed to inclusive is actually not accurate, it makes no change to the membership requirements of the Club.

>>>3) We should be opening new doors to seek new members, not closing them.
Requiring members to actually join the Club is hardly closing doors on them.

>>>4) The amendment makes no provision for enforcement.
There is no provision for enforcement of the election provisions either, so what?

>>>How are chapters to know who is a current member of the CC>CC? How are the chapters to keep up with those who are chapter members but let their CC>CC membership lapse?

This logistical issue is not necessarily addressed in the Constitution, the meansd of effectuating the provisions can be left to the BOD (as other Consitutional provisions do). And this process can be set up in several different ways, none of which are particularly burdensome.

>>>5) The amendment makes no provision for non-compliance. If there is no "penalty" for non-compliance, why have the amendment in the first place?

See my previous answer. Further, I do not know why you think there are no penalties. It would seem to me that if a Chapter didn't comply, the Club would not recognize the Chapter as a Chapter.

>>>6) The amendment makes no provision for associate or lifetime memberships. Can an associate member of the CC>CC be a full member of a chapter? And as a well, can a regular member of the CC>CC be an associate member of a chapter. The same questions are valid for lifetime memberships.

I can ask you a hundred questions about the meaning and implementation of the current Consitution. That there are minor issues which are not specifically addressed is not a reason to discard the whole amendment.

>>>If instead of "chapters" if the CC>CC had "member clubs" this would resolve the problem. The ANA is the largest coin hobby organization. The ANA does not have "chapters", it does have "member clubs".

The ANA is in a different position thanm we are. What benefit do we get from a member club system? Chapters provide a service to CCGTCC members. Member Clubs on the other are a benefit from CCGTCC members.

>>>Finally, should this amendment pass, I will not comply.
I find that sad.

>>>I will not close the door to the NY Metro Chapter to anyone for reason of membership in the CC>CC.

I will never understand why those who oppose this amendment think that it would require you to close any doors on anyone. I see nothing in the Amendment which would prohibit you from opening club events to the general public. It merely would require that the title and priviledge of being a member of the club and the incidents of membership (voice in the governing of the Chapter) would require mebership in the CCGTCC. I've sat in many churches to which I did not belong and have felt welcome in all of them.