You missed it, too, Jim, and it is not a vey good choice (may) of words, especially when Archie is interpreting what someone else is saying.

David Ganz said:

"Nothing could be more obvious than the inclusion of
a casino chip [in the HPA]."

David Ganz did not say what Archie is implying he said:

"...that chips may apply to the Hobby Protection
Act."

Unless I've misread what David Ganz said ((you can read it, again, too) I grasped
what he was implying was that a casino chip would
fall within the examples listed. Otherwise, why
would he conclude with the above quote after listing
what the act includes?

There is one part of the act that isn't too clear to me, Jim, and that's where in Sec. 304.1 (f) partially reads: "Such term includes......" and lists coins and tokens. Does "Such term includes" kind of leave it open as to what may actually be included without actually listing what may be excluded? Either way, I do see a problem with the way that is written.

JB