I apologize if I came on like 'an attack dog', that was never my intent. I prefer discussions (even enthusiastic debates) to be respectful, and if I have come across as disrespectful, I am mortified. I will strive to be more cautious in my language.

It does seem we differ as to what is meant by the statute. I have argued the position I would take in Court (unless it conflicted with my client's interest :-).

I do criminal law (primarily as a PD), and constitutional law. MOst of what I do is argued fast and loud from all sides (not congenial by any means).

I do take the position that I may do whatever the law does not say I can't do. In my reading of the statute the law does not specifically cover casino chips or casino tokens. A reasonable person could disagree with that. A court or Congress could change that. But as the law is written that is my position.

I say that in part because legislatures have commonly written into their laws (or relied upon Nevada law, albeit administrative) the purpose of tokens, and by extension chips, as a substitute for cash. The chip belonging to the casino. I accept that not every state may have this, but it appears to be the commonly accepted legal position.

I also believe that since the law at the time of its passage did not specifically include chips or casino tokens, and it could of, and no court has extended the law to cover such items, then it does not yet apply.

Another point, most collectable coins, tokens etc are made by government run, or licensed facilities with public obligations. For example the Franklin Mint. There is nothing to prevent the Tropicana from reissuing a chip from the 1950s.

There is no government oversight as to quality or amount (with the exception of the Gaming regulators who are basing their requirements on issues other than those concerning collectors.

I recall several discussions at the last convention related to the lack of interaction with gaming regulators (with an eye of protecting the hobby). General details about coins etc, or tokens put out as collectibles have certain public info available. Info which is not made public for Chips or tokens.

I have heard chip collecting compared to beanie babies (I know it hurts me to), because in theory the provider creates an artificial market.

It may apply in the future, if Congress or the Courts act, but they haven't. This is not to suggest that other laws regarding fraud don't apply.

I think you will agree there are a lot of issues involving chipping which the law has not caught up with. That is why these discussions are beneficial.

Note, as a chipper, I think a person should be required to mark such items. Common decency and honesty require it, I just don't think the law does at this point.

If nothing else, our debate may have helped educate others as to the gaps in the law, help them protect themselves. But realistically, we may be the only ones even looking at it.

Aaron