Actually -- had we had state legislature electing senators, our former Solicitor General, Ted Cruz, still would have beaten the ever more unpopular David Dewhurst.

Other Senators that likely wouldn't have been elected include the RINO Kay Bailout Hutchinson. Cornyn probably still would have won, even if I preferred Stockman this time around.

Obama has a phone, and he used it. Up next may be a strongly worded letter, but not too strongly worded, because Putin might not like that.

As an aside.... Is this what Obama meant when he told Medvedev that he'd have more flexibility after the election?

... very proud Cruz is my Senator.

Do other people genuinely hear ringing (like the repeated sound of a bell?) or is it just a figure of speech?

Mine doesn't sound like a ring, it's a continuous tone at what seems about the frequency of a CRT TV flyback (about 15kHz or so. I went to the effort of putting my signal generator through headphones and turning the knob until it matched the constant tone I always hear). It never goes away. I can ignore it though, but it never goes away regardless of whether I'm in silence or a lot of noise.

If he does it commercially, yes.

It's an FAA matter because the FAA regulates the National Airspace System in which this RC aircraft was flying. No one else regulates airspace in the United States, not cities, not states, airspace is a federal matter and many cases have settled this (for example when cities try to enact their own overflight rules, the FAA slaps them down, and has been doing for a long time). It doesn't matter what you're flying, you are still subject to 14CFR if you fly something. It doesn't matter how small or light it is.

The FAA doesn't regulate cars, RC or otherwise so the RC car example is not relevant.

But I haven't got the money.

Sure, but even so, being under investigation can be quite uncomfortable. It wastes your time and LEs time. Best to avoid it when you can.

Change is only constant if the degree of the leading term is 1 :-)

Anyone have any examples of the "rarefied vocabulary" used by the SAT?

"But what, a bunch of unarmed anti-gun hippies are going to attack the homes of people they know have guns and are serious enough to get a license to carry one at all times?"

Obviously that is not expected.

What is expected is a horde of hipsters making a spectacle and attempting to cause pain for the gun owner through his/her family and/or work and livelihood. People organizing maliciously to bully your kids and cause you trouble at work can actually be a lot harder to deal with than a physical assault.

"If anything, this seems like a list of "houses not to hit" for potential burglars."

See it's a double-edged sword that way. It's a house you definitely dont hit on a whim - cause you could get shot. But on the other hand, if you are a serious burglar, this marks it as a high value target. They'll watch for a chance and once sure nobody is home, they want to get in to steal those weapons.

You know, I am not a lawyer, and I cannot give you a specific requirement there. There probably isnt one now that I think about it. The practice among the people I know is to keep a record of when it was sold, and a name and signature from the buyer. Both to cover yourself and, frankly, because in those rare cases where LE does have a legitimate reason to come back looking for it we do want to be able to help. Gun owners are generally pretty law and order people, with natural respect for LE. That respect can be and is strained by bad laws and bad LE practices and people resent over-reaches but end of the day we do want the cops catching real criminals and we are not trying to impede that.

I've started getting "this resource is no longer valid" warnings when I post stuff here. Coincidence?

Well, my view options are set to Raw & Uncut (-1), so in theory I should see all the comments. In theory.

Your assumption is that any expression of distaste for a background check is an indication the buyer would not pass one. It's an errant assumption.

No one wants to go through the background check because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up. So quite naturally people are not willing to go through it in a situation where it is not legally required.

You are required to keep a record of the transaction with the serial number. If the weapon you sold were used in a crime later, it will be traced back to you. The original retail sale is on record, that person (if not you) will then produce the name of the person he sold it to, which is either you or will lead to you via reiterating the same process. If you cannot produce the weapon or produce a receipt showing who you sold it to, then you're in trouble. But until and unless there is a criminal investigation to justify the intrusion, that information is no one's business.