吉林在哪个医院能做包皮手术(吉林早泄治疗哪家医院较好) (今日更新中)

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Missouri lawmakers advanced a bill Wednesday, that would allow concealed carry in churches, daycares and bars, among other locations.House Bill 1936 extends the list of places where gun owners can carry a concealed weapon — whether they have a permit or not."The definition of a criminal is someone who doesn't follow the law. We should be giving an individual the ability to protect themselves in any situation," said state Rep. Jered Taylor, a Republican from Nixa.This is the second year Taylor has introduced this bill.Currently, in Missouri, there are 17 locations where concealed carry is not allowed. Taylor's bill would narrow that list.If passed, the bill would allow concealed carry at amusement parks, casinos, child care facilities, churches, hospitals, stadiums, polling locations and local government buildings, including public universities and colleges."You cannot carry into those locations unless you have express permission from the property owner. What I am trying to do is leave it up to the property owner and let them decide what they want to allow and not allow," said Taylor.To opt out, private businesses would have to post signs prohibiting guns. Government buildings and public universities would not have that option."When I think about gun violence in KC and the legislation that is happening in Jefferson City, there is a huge disconnect," said AdHoc president Damon Daniel.Based on his experiences helping victims of crime, Daniel said he does not believe guns are the solution. In fact, hours before a committee passed HB 1936, he joined the Jackson County prosecutor in announcing a new service to help innocent bystanders of crimes."That's just not the solution. The solution to curb violence in Kansas City, especially when we talk about homicides, is we need more economic opportunities, we need more jobs, more mental health providers," said Damon, who added other than having a gun to protect one's home "no one wants a lot of people walking around carrying guns."Since the bill passed out of a House rules committee, it can be brought for debate on the House floor anytime.To read the bill in its entirety, see the window below. 2195

Jennifer and Sarah Hart's 6-year-old daughter told a Minnesota public school teacher in 2010 that she had "owies" on her tummy and back after her mother hit her with her fist, leaving bruises.Alarmed, the teacher alerted social services and police, who launched a criminal investigation. Six months later, Sarah Hart pleaded guilty to an assault charge and was sentenced to probation, county records show.Just a week later, the Harts' six adopted children were pulled from their public schools in favor of a home-school setting, said Jill Johnson, a spokeswoman for the district, based in the small town of Alexandria.They never returned to public schools.The family moved, then moved again. Neighbors lodged new claims of maltreatment. Then, two weeks ago, as child protection workers in Washington state were trying to contact the Harts, their SUV plunged off a cliff in California, killing the parents and at least three children. The other three remain missing but are believed to have been inside the SUV. Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman, who is heading the investigation, says he believes the crash was intentional.The Harts' experience highlights what experts told CNN are classic signs of abusive parents isolating their children from other adults, including those who are mandated by law to report suspected abuse to authorities, such as teachers, doctors and police.The combination of frequent moves, home-schooling and seclusion from neighbors, along with using food as a means of control -- all in play in the Hart case -- can signal the possibility of abuse, experts said."When you see families that are going to great extremes to keep their kids out of view," said David Finkelhor, the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center, "that's a red flag." 1789

Judge Amy Coney Barrett remained tight-lipped on how she would rule in politically-charged Supreme Court cases in early questioning during her confirmation hearings on Tuesday morning, citing judicial precedence.Barrett is President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court nominee, and Trump has said that he would only nominate judges that would roll back abortion rights and end the public health care system set up by the Affordable Care Act. And while her judicial history indicates that Barrett fits those qualifications, she continually avoided answering specific qualifications about looming Supreme Court cases.Barrett was asked her views on several politically-charged topics which the Supreme Court could potentially influence, including:2020 ElectionWhen asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, if she would recuse herself should the upcoming election spark a Supreme Court decision, Barrett clarified that she had not made a "commitment to anyone...on how she would decide a case."Barrett later said she would consider the legal requirements of recusal from the eight other Supreme Court judges should the election spark a case.Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-MN, asked Barrett specifically about President Donald Trump's call to have "poll watchers" observe voters ahead of election day and check for fraud — an action that legal experts worry could suppress turnout.When asked if it would be illegal for those "poll watchers" to "intimidate" voters, Barrett said she would not comment on hypothetical cases.AbortionWhen asked repeatedly by Feinstein if she agrees with Justice Antonin Scalia if Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that it "can and should be overruled," Barrett attempted to sidestep the answer."If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say 'I love it or I hate it,' it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a given case," she said.She later clarified that she does not have an "agenda." She added that her agenda is to "stick to the rule of law."The Affordable Care ActCommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Barrett directly if she would recuse herself from any Affordable Care Act cases, given Trump's call to dismantle the law and her past writings critical on Supreme Court decisions upholding the law. Barrett said she would follow typical recusal procedures should she be asked by the other justices.Later, Feinstein asked Barrett if she had any "thoughts" on an upcoming ACA case, California v. Texas. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on that case on Nov. 10.Barrett said she would not share any thoughts on the case.Finally, Barrett told Sen. Chuck Grassley that she had not been directed by any politicians to strike down the law.Gun controlBarrett was asked directly by Feinstein how she would rule in the event a case regarding gun control came before the court. She said she would "look carefully at text, look...applying law as I best determine it."LGBTQ+ rightsFeinstein also asked Barrett how she would rule in cases regarding LGBTQ+ rights. During the questioning, Barrett said she found both "racism" and "discrimination on sexual preference" to be "abhorrent."According to GLAAD, the term "sexual preference" implies that a person's sexuality is a "choice," meaning it can be cured. The organization prefers the term "sexual orientation."Voting rightsSen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, spent a large amount of his time comparing recent Supreme Court decisions on voting rights to decisions on the Second Amendment, noting that some felons in America retain the right to a firearm but lose their right to vote.Durbin related that anecdote to rulings Barrett has made regarding a felon's right to firearms. Barrett accused Durbin of taking her ruling out of context. She later added that she does not have an "agenda" when it comes to certain cases, though Durbin argued that all judges are shaped by their own values and experiences._____________Questioning took place in a marathon-length session on Tuesday, with all 22 members on Senate Judiciary Committee being granted the opportunity to question Barrett for 30 minutes at a time. Members will get an additional 20 minutes of questioning on Wednesday.On Monday, lawmakers were each granted 10 minutes to deliver an opening statement, all of which fell along party lines.Democrats said Barrett's nomination would threaten healthcare for millions of Americans, citing past criticisms of previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld the Affordable Care Act that Barrett has published. They also argued that Republicans were "rushing" Barrett's nomination ahead of election day to, as Sen. Kamala Harris put it, "bypass the will of the American people."Many Democrats took issue with hearings even being held amid a pandemic, claiming Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham had taken lax measures to not require lawmakers to be tested and lambasting Republicans for putting Capitol Building staff at risk. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-NC, who was recently isolated due to the coronavirus, submitted a letter to Graham from his doctor claiming he was following CDC guidelines. They also argued that their time would be better spent working on stimulus legislation.Most Republicans used the time to champion Barrett's character as a working mother of nine children and argue that it was their Constitutional duty to fill the open seat because they control both the Senate and the White House.Following the committee members' opening statements, Barrett delivered her own statement, in which she paid homage to her mentors and Conservative icon, Justice Antonin Scalia, and to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, saying she was "forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led."Graham has said he hopes to have confirmation hearings completely wrapped up by Thursday. He added that Republicans are on track to wrap up the process by the end of the month —just a week before election day. 5909

LA JOLLA (KGTV) - A car slammed into the wall of a fire station in La Jolla on Saturday night, narrowly missing firefighters.The crash happened around 7:30 p.m. at San Diego Fire-Rescue Department’s station 9 on Ardath Lane near Torrey Pines Road. The car veered off the road and crashed into the patio wall of the station, while crews were eating dinner, according to Battalion Chief Joseph Scuri. The car missed the firefighters by about 12 feet. No one was injured.Three people were in the car at the time, but were also not injured. A natural gas line to an outdoor barbeque was hit and severed. Firefighters quickly turned off the gas to the station. SDG&E came out and repaired it. 704

LA JOLLA, Calif. (KGTV) - A flurry of reports about a foul odor in the La Jolla and Clairemont neighborhoods had San Diego Fire-Rescue crews busy Wednesday afternoon.Crews had at least six calls about possible gas leaks starting about 3:30 p.m. Three calls came from La Jolla, a fourth was just east of U.C. San Diego, a fifth call in University City, and a sixth came from Clairemont. Firefighters found no evidence of a gas leak. Initially, a spokesperson for the Fire Department said she believed the smell could be coming from a kelp bloom off La Jolla. But hours later, she said the Fire Department was unable to determine the source.Do you smell it? Email us at tips@10news.com. 712

来源：资阳报