Keep in mind that Chad is listed as the AMA's Public Relations and Governmental Affairs, which means that when he speaks, one could (perhaps should) think that he speaks for the organization. In one of the responses, he mentioned that the exemption to the 400 foot limit applied to "AMA members." I asked him to clarify and confirm that this did not require membership. He got snippy. In all fairness, the language in the proposed bill is different, and I think they should be clear what the new language means to AMA. He wouldn't.

So made another post, pointing out that it was he, the "Public Affairs and Government Relations" representative of the AMA that used the term "members" and that as a professional we would be correct in assuming that his language choice was deliberate and precise. Not only was the comment not answered, he deleted it.

So, the AMA's paid employee responsible for "Public Relations and Governmental Affairs" refuses to go on record as to whether or not they interpret the language in the proposed bill as requiring membership.

That doesn't sit right with me, and if you agree, please ask the same question on their blog. - Thanks.