成都脉管炎民间治疗方法(成都医治小腿血管炎好的医院) (今日更新中)

Right after the mass shooting at a Florida high school earlier this year, Dick's Sporting Goods decided to stop selling assault-style weapons at its stores.Now the nation's largest sporting goods retailer is going to destroy those guns."We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change," the company told CNN."We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations."A company spokesman wouldn't say how the guns would be destroyed.Dick's was one of a number of retailers that made changes to their gun sales policy after the February 14 massacre at Marjory Stonemen High School that killed 17 students and staff.Around the same time, Walmart said it would also raise the age restriction for purchase of firearms and ammunition to 21. It also removed items from its website that resembled assault-style rifles, "including nonlethal airsoft guns and toys."L.L. Bean and Kroger (which sells guns through its Fred Meyer stores) both raised their minimum gun buying age to 21.Dick's CEO Edward Stack said he and other company executives were moved by the Parkland school shooting survivor's push for gun control measures. And he said the company was alarmed after learning that school shooter Nikolas Cruz had bought a gun at Dick's, although not the AR-15-style rifle used in the February 14 massacre."We don't want to be a part of this story any longer," he told CNN's New Day back in February. 1530

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Law enforcement agencies in California must release police misconduct records even if the behavior occurred before a new transparency law took effect, a state court of appeals has ruled.The 1st District Court of Appeal's decision released Friday settles for now a debate over whether records created before Jan. 1, when the law took effect, were subject to disclosure. Many police unions have sued to block the records release, while public information advocates argued the records should be disclosed.The ruling applies to police agencies statewide, including the attorney general's office, unless another appellate court steps in and rules differently, said David Snyder of the First Amendment Coalition."These records are absolutely essential for the public to be able to see what the police departments are doing with respect to police misdoubt," said Snyder, whose group intervened in the case. "These agencies have enormous power over Californians and so transparency of those agencies is absolutely essential in order to be able to hold them accountable."At least one agency reversed its prior decision to deny access to old records after the ruling came in. Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones said he would release records dating back five years after reading the court of appeal's decision, the Sacramento Bee reported.Mike Rains, an attorney for the Walnut Creek Police Officers Association and other police agencies seeking to block the disclosure, said he doesn't see the decision as setting precedent on the merits of the case but that agencies are likely to take guidance from it unless another court rules differently.His clients do not have an issue with releasing records of misconduct produced after Jan. 1, Rains said, but see the release of old records as a privacy violation."Police officers used to have a privacy right," he said. "We don't believe it changes the rights of privacy to those records that were created prior to Jan. 1."California lawmakers voted last year to require police agencies to release records on police shootings and officer misconduct to the public. Police unions had sought to block old records, with some law enforcement agencies even destroying them. Attorney General Xavier Becerra also declined to release records from his office, saying the intent of the law need to be clarified by the courts.The appeals court ruled on March 12 but only made the opinion public Friday.The rulings by a panel of three justices said the old records can be released because the action triggering their release — a request for public information by reporters or others — occurs after Jan. 1. The justices also noted the release of the records does not change the legal consequences for officers already found to have engaged in misconduct."The new law changes only the public's right to access peace officer records," the justices wrote. 2908

SACRAMENTO (KGTV) -- Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill Monday requiring California State University undergraduates to take an ethnic studies course to graduate. The change comes amid national calls to dismantle systemic and unconscious racism, starting with public education.The bill was authored by local Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus and longtime professor of Africana Studies at San Diego State University.“What we are seeing in Washington and on American streets right now demonstrates the necessity of understanding the experiences and perspectives of these historically marginalized and oppressed groups who have nonetheless contributed to the building of our country,” Weber said in a statement. “This is great day for students and for the state. I am grateful to the Governor for joining me in moving California forward.”The bill, AB 1460, requires all CSU undergraduates to take at least one three-unit course in ethnic studies. The course must focus on Native Americans, African Americans, or Latina and Latino Americans.The legislation will go into effect beginning with students graduating in the 2024-25 academic year.The bill represents the first change to the CSU general education curriculum in over 40 years. 1283

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — The mayor of Rochester says reforms are coming to the police department as community elders seek to bring calmer minds to a fifth night of demonstrations over the March death of Daniel Prude, who lost consciousness after police held a hood over his head. Mayor Lovely Warren announced that the crisis intervention team would move from the police department to the city’s department of youth and recreation services at a news conference Sunday. Police Chief La’Ron Singletary said he supports the need for reform and is working with experts and clinicians in getting services for people with mental health issues that bring them into repeated police contact. More than 1,000 protesters gathered for a march led by community elders in Rochester Sunday night. 787

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303

来源：资阳报