阳江女性会阴模型广西多种心电图电脑模拟人,石家庄高级助产训练模型,兰州泌尿系统发生模型,郑州产后基础护理母乳喂养模拟人,四川40公分肌肉人模型,海南平滑肌纤维模型,江苏眼球仪模型

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California affiliate of the National Rifle Association has asked a U.S. judge to block a new law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.The California Rifle & Pistol Association asked San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez to halt the checks and related restrictions on ammunition sales.Voters approved tightening California's already strict firearms laws in 2016. The restrictions took effect July 1.The gun owners' association challenged the ammunition background checks in a lawsuit filed last year and on Monday asked for an injunction, alleging it violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.RELATED: New ammunition law requires background checksThe lawsuit has been joined by out-of-state ammunition sellers and California residents, including Kim Rhode, who has won six Olympic shooting medals and is trying to become the only person to win seven medals at seven consecutive Games."The scheme purports to funnel everyone seeking to exercise their Second Amendment right to acquire ammunition into a single, controlled source, an in-state licensed vendor, for the purpose of confirming purchasers' legal eligibility to possess ammunition and to keep track of all purchases," lawyer Sean Brady wrote. "While making sure dangerous people do not obtain weapons is a laudable goal for government, California's scheme goes too far and must be enjoined."The motion raised concerns about identification requirements and high rates of denials among ammunition buyers undergoing the new background checks. Moreover, the system blocks out-of-state ammunition vendors from the California market, the motion argues.RELATED: Study: Tougher gun laws lead to fewer firearm-related deaths among childrenThe judge is expected to decide in early August whether to order a halt, though any such decision is almost certain to be appealed.Benitez in October rejected the state's attempt to throw out the lawsuit. He allowed opponents to proceed on arguments that the ammunition restrictions impede interstate commerce and are pre-empted by federal law.The measure "criminalizes all of those (ammunition) transactions with merchants conducting business in other states," he wrote in a preliminary ruling that the restriction "significantly burdens interstate commerce."He also preliminarily supported the argument that the new state law conflicts with a federal law allowing gun owners to bring their firearms and ammunition through California.RELATED: Southern California town of Needles wants to be a sanctuary -- for gun ownersThe California law "criminalizes bringing ammunition into the state that was purchased or obtained outside the state," he wrote.Benitez earlier this year struck down California's nearly two-decade-old ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. That triggered a week-long buying frenzy before he stopped sales while the state appeals his ruling.The impending ammunition background checks sparked a surge in sales as firearm owners sought to beat new requirements, including that dealers report the brand, type and amount of ammunition to the state Department of Justice.Gun owners who already are in the state's background check database would pay a fee each time they buy ammunition, while others can buy longer-term licenses if they do not have certain criminal convictions or mental health commitments.Gov. Gavin Newsom has criticized Benitez's lifting of the state's ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets, saying he is confident it will be reinstated by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Attorneys with San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence anticipated that Benitez is likely to block the ammunition restrictions, but the law would eventually be upheld on appeal."Unfortunately this may be the one judge in the country" willing to rule that "people should be able to buy unlimited quantities of ammunition without background checks," staff attorney Ari Freilich, who directs the organization's California legislative affairs, said prior to the filing.Gun owner groups have been pinning their hopes on a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court. But the center's litigation director, Hannah Shearer, said there are unlikely to be the kind of conflicting lower court opinions that would prompt the justices to weigh in.She said courts have upheld ammunition licensing laws in other states and she expects the 9th Circuit would do likewise. 4465

Rev. Dr. Monica Cummings doesn’t have to look far from her Kenosha, Wisconsin church to see the damage left by protests that turned violent after the police shooting of Jacob Blake.“Our church shares a property line with the car dealership that was destroyed by fire," Cummings said.Flames spared the Bradford Community Church, but in Kenosha, it's easy to see what wasn't.Bradford's lead pastor, Erik Carlson, sees why.“The anger that produced these demonstrations doesn’t come from a vacuum. It comes from problems in our society dating back in cases hundreds of years that we have not addressed," Carlson said.Carlson is a Unitarian Universalist minister. His sermons are often are about bringing diverse ideas together."We’re not as much united by a specific idea of God, as much as we are netted around a commitment to positive social change and to the idea that we are charged with bringing love into this world," Carlson explained.It’s a faith fit for a city wounded by issues of race and equality.“The church can play a role in terms of having a partnership with the police department, in terms of bringing the community and police together," Cummings said. “It’s a challenge, how to interact with someone who represents a group of people who have historically oppressed you, who have historically traumatized you. How do you engage in an interaction with an individual without being defensive?”Cummings says she also understands the trauma police officers endure, too."Police have trauma, as well. There is no way they could do their job day in and day out without their mental health suffering," she said.Society has many views on how to police, protest, and pray. In this Kenosha church, diversity in race and viewpoints are welcome in finding a path beyond the heartbreak."We don’t like destruction of property, but we understand and appreciate the pain that it comes from," Carlson said. "We rather lose our building and 100 buildings than lose another life to police violence.” 1999

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Two major law enforcement organizations have dropped their opposition to California legislation that strengthens standards for when officers can use of deadly force, a shift that comes after supporters made changes to the measure.Spokesmen for organizations representing California police chiefs and rank-and-file officers told The Associated Press on Thursday that they won't fight the measure, which was prompted by public outrage over fatal police shootings.As originally written, the measure would bar police from using lethal force unless it is "necessary" to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or bystanders.That's a change from the current standard, which lets officers kill if they have "reasonable" fear they or others are in imminent danger. The threshold made it rare for officers to be charged following a shooting and rarer still for them to be convicted."With so many unnecessary deaths, I think everyone agrees that we need to change how deadly force is used in California," said Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber of San Diego, who wrote the measure. "We can now move a policy forward that will save lives and change the culture of policing in California."Law enforcement officials did not immediately explain their decision. But a revised version of the bill filed Thursday drops an explicit definition of "necessary" that was in the original version. The deleted language provided that officers could act when there is "no reasonable alternative."The amended measure also makes it clear that officers are not required to retreat or back down in the face of a suspect's resistance and officers don't lose their right to self-defense if they use "objectively reasonable force."Amendments also strip out a specific requirement that officers try to de-escalate confrontations before using deadly force but allows the courts to consider officers' actions leading up to fatal shootings, said Peter Bibring, police practices director for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which proposed the bill and negotiated the changes."By requiring that officers use force only when necessary and examining their conduct leading up to use of force, the courts can still consider whether officers needlessly escalated a situation or failed to use de-escalation tactics that could have avoided a shooting," he said.Even with the changes, the ACLU considers the bill to have the strongest language of any in the country.Democratic leaders in the Legislature signed on to the revised version, which is set for a key Assembly vote next week. 2634

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California would become the first state to require businesses to offer electronic receipts unless customers ask for paper copies under legislation proposed on Tuesday.Many businesses and consumers already are moving toward e-receipts, said Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco.But he said a law still is needed because many consumers don't realize most paper receipts are coated with chemicals prohibited in baby bottles, can't be recycled and can contaminate other recycled paper because of the chemicals known as Bisphenol-A (BPA) and Bisphenol-S (BPS).His bill, AB161, would require all businesses to provide proof of purchase receipts electronically starting in 2022 unless the customer asks for a printed copy.RELATED: City Council votes to ban Styrofoam across San DiegoIt comes days after another first-in-the-nation California law took effect requiring dine-in restaurants to provide drinking straws only at customers' request.The penalties in Ting's bill are modeled on the straw bill, said Nick Lapis of Californians Against Waste. It calls for written warnings for the first two violations and a fine of a day for subsequent infractions, with a 0 cap."It's intended to be a pretty light touch in terms of enforcement," Lapis said.Advocates said the use of straws is declining after that law was passed.Many larger stores already offer the choice involving receipts but it is unclear if a mandate would cause a hardship for small and medium-size stores, said California Retailers Association spokeswoman Pamela Williams. Her association and the California Chamber of Commerce have not taken positons on the bill.Ting said businesses can save money by moving away from printed receipts.The advocacy group Green America, which is pushing a "skip the slip" campaign, estimated that millions of trees and billions of gallons of water are used annually to produce paper receipts in the United States.Ting cited studies by the Environmental Working Group and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that retail workers have higher concentrations of BPA or BPS than those who do not have regular contact with receipts.Ting said consumers can still request paper receipts if they are worried about giving out their email addresses for privacy reasons or to avoid having their emails used or sold for marketing purposes. 2382

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will resume eviction and foreclosure proceedings on Sept. 1 unless the state Legislature agrees to extend the protections. The Judicial Council of California voted 19-1 to end the temporary rules that had been in place since April 6. State lawmakers are negotiating with Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on a proposal that would halt most evictions for the duration of the pandemic. But they have yet to reach a deal despite having five months to negotiate. California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye on Thursday urged the Legislature and the governor to move quickly to “resolve this looming crisis.” 647