1) Well, this is a huge mis-statement (over simplification) of the law. You know it, so I won't even discuss that here. You may believe in strict textualism (or not), but I am sure you have run into judges that don't.

2) Is that true in all areas that have casinos/card clubs? California, Connecticut, Atlantic City. Second, where does the HPA mention the word, "collectibles"? I think it's irrelevant to the statute. It does include the word "tokens".

I am no expert. Neither are you. The statute has not been sufficiently tested to know what it includes. I have a case in front of me that says it is to be liberally construed, however. So much for strict textualism. In any case, I am not arguing that they are covered, just that we don't know. If you say you do, show me proof.

Michael Siskin