铁岭市色妆美甲加盟店电话多少钱(泰州市98元自助美甲加盟电话多少钱) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets."Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group's argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling.Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge's latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades."We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he struck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said.Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is "committed to defending California's common sense gun laws" and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps.The goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, with Becerra previously listing as an example the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino.Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, called such shootings "exceedingly rare" while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders he said might be countered with firearms.The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after a former congresswoman who survived a mass shooting, is also still evaluating whether the decision applies more broadly, said staff attorney Ari Freilich.But Freilich predicted the "extreme outlier decision" will be overturned on appeal and criticized a judge "so deeply out of touch that he believes mass shootings are a 'very small' problem in this country."Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines. The conflicting decisions may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone."She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.The magazine ban was included in 2016 legislation that voters strengthened with their approval of Proposition 63, which was championed by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.In a statement, Newsom criticized the judge's ruling."This District Court Judge's failure to uphold a ban on high-capacity magazines is indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law," the governor said. "I strongly disagree with the court's assessment that 'the problem of mass shootings is very small.' Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast." 4228

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom broadly agree on a proposed 3 billion state budget that would spend more on immigrants and the poor by expanding tax credits, health care and child care.But they're still debating how far those program expansions should go and how best to pay for them.They're now in the final days of negotiations ahead of a June 15 deadline for lawmakers to approve the budget or stop getting paid.California law requires legislation to be in print for 72 hours before lawmakers take a vote, which means any deal would have to be struck by Wednesday.TAX CREDITNewsom wants to spend roughly 0 million to expand a tax credit program for low-income people with children under the age of 6. The program is known as the earned income tax credit, but Newsom prefers to call it a "cost-of-living refund."His plan would increase the credit to ,000 a year and allow more people to access it. He wants the state to pay it out on a monthly basis, something no state has won federal approval to do.He acknowledged it might not happen this year if California can't win approval from the Trump administration.The Senate and Assembly want to expand the credit even further by allowing people living in the country illegally to claim it. Newsom has suggested that would be too expensive.TAX LAW CHANGESTo pay for a tax credit expansion, Newsom wants California to adopt some of the changes to the federal tax code signed in 2017 by President Donald Trump. California is one of three states that haven't yet conformed.Newsom wants to generate about billion a year through changes that would mostly raise taxes on businesses. Lawmakers have not included the changes in their version of the budget and want to use existing tax dollars to cover the expanded program. State officials have predicted a surplus of .5 billion.Changing the tax code would require a two-thirds vote in each chamber, and many lawmakers are skittish to approve a tax increase.Newsom tried to ease those concerns by getting the head of the California Taxpayers Association to publicly declare his organization is neutral on the proposal.HEALTH CARE FOR IMMIGRANTSCalifornia Democrats say they want to reduce the state's uninsured rate to zero, a goal that would require opening Medicaid — the joint federal and state health insurance program for the poor and disabled — to people living in the country illegally.Newsom's proposal would do that for adults 19 to 25. The state Senate went a step further and expanded the plan to include people 65 and older.Newsom opposes the Senate plan, saying it puts too much pressure on the general fund.INDIVIDUAL MANDATENewsom wants to spend nearly 0 million to make California the first state to expand subsidies for premiums under the federal health care law to people who make at least six times the U.S. poverty level.That would make a family of four earning up to 0,600 a year eligible for help.To pay for it, Newsom wants to tax people who don't have health insurance.The Senate wants to double Newsom's proposed spending to expand subsidies for people making less than twice the federal poverty limit. They already get help from the federal government and the state Senate's proposal would also give them state dollars.The Senate proposal also calls for keeping the tax on the uninsured, but it does not tie that money to subsidies.HEALTH PROVIDER TAXA health provider tax would affect companies that manage the California Medicaid program. Those companies, called managed care organizations, pay a tax for every person they enroll.The tax could bring the state about .8 billion next year, but it's set to expire June 30.California would need permission from the Trump administration to extend the tax. Newsom is not sure that will happen, so he did not include the money in his budget proposal. The state Senate and Assembly did.DRINKING WATERActivists say more than 1 million Californians don't have clean drinking water.Newsom wants to impose a 95-cent tax on most monthly residential water bills, as well as fees on dairies, animal farms and fertilizer sellers, to help water districts pay for improvements and boost supplies.The Senate has rejected the tax that Newsom estimates would generate 4 million a year. The Senate does want to clean up water systems and would use existing money to do it.The Assembly says lawmakers should delay action until later in the year.DIAPER AND TAMPON TAXNewsom and the Senate want to exempt diapers, tampons and other menstrual hygiene products from the state sales tax for two years. Assembly lawmakers say the tax exemption should last a decade.PAID FAMILY LEAVENewsom and the Senate want to expand paid family leave from six weeks to eight weeks, beginning July 1, 2020. The Assembly did not put the expansion in its budget proposal, preferring to debate the issue later this year. 4911

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California is giving cities and counties more power to speed up the building of supportive housing and shelters amid a homelessness crisis.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 13 laws aimed at stemming the crisis Thursday. His action comes as Republican President Donald Trump criticizes California's handling of the issue, most recently blaming homelessness for water pollution .California, the nation's most populous state, has a growing number of people living in the streets in cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. But Newsom has accused Trump of politicizing the issue and called on the federal government to provide more aid to get people into housing.Newsom said the bills he's signed will "give local governments even more tools to confront this crisis."One new law that takes effect immediately lets Los Angeles bypass parts of the California Environmental Quality Act to build supportive housing and shelters. Another lets projects that will turn hotels into housing forego certain CEQA reviews through 2025."Supportive housing and shelters aren't being built quickly enough and as long as Californians are struggling to survive in our streets, we have a moral responsibility to do everything in our power to provide the shelter and assistance they need to get back on their feet," Assemblyman Miguel Santaigo, a Los Angeles Democrat, said in a statement.Some critics of CEQA have argued it can be weaponized to delay development of projects community residents might find unfavorable.Another adds Orange and Alameda counties as well as San Jose to the list of places that can declare emergencies and build shelters on publicly owned land. It builds on a 2017 law that lets Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, Santa Clara and San Francisco declare such crisis."I am optimistic that we will continue to work together to bring solutions to our homelessness crisis," said Democratic Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, who authored the bill and represents parts of Orange County.Los Angeles declared a shelter crisis after the 2017 law and set a goal of creating 750 to 1,500 new shelter beds, according to a bill analysis. So far it has opened 109 of those beds and has 170 under construction.Another piece of legislation signed by Newsom exempts projects built with billion in voter-approved bonds from environmental rules. The Sierra Club, an environmental group, opposed the legislation.Other bills Newsom signed will:—Allow for the use of vacant California armories to provide temporary shelter during hazardous weather.—Create a legal framework for agreements with landlords allowing tenants to take in people at risk of homelessness.—Let the California Department of Transportation lease property to local governments at a cost of per month for emergency shelters. 2843

RIVERSIDE, Calif. - A California couple's fiery Halloween decorations are so hot it's prompting people to call 911.According to KABC, Carmen and Travis Long of Riverside decorated their home with a "Pirates of the Caribbean" theme, along with a realistic fire coming from the house.Riverside County Media captured video of the home's decorations. 354

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Pacific Gas & Electric's key lenders on Tuesday offered a billion plan to pull the utility out of bankruptcy and give the tarnished company a new name.The proposal filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court would set aside up to billion of that billion to pay claims on the 2017 and 2018 wildfires caused by PG&E equipment, the Sacramento Bee reported.The plan offered by PG&E's leading bondholders would compete with an alternative that the newspaper says is being drafted by PG&E. Normally the company in bankruptcy has first crack at proposing an exit plan, but the bondholders said in a court filing that they filed their plan because PG&E has "wasted crucial time needlessly."The bondholders also want to rebrand PG&E as Golden State Power Light & Gas Company.Asked about the bondholders' plan, the utility said in a statement that it was considering all options as it navigates the bankruptcy process.The new proposal came four days after Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, floated the idea of a billion package to deal with the costs of future wildfires, paid for by ratepayers and shareholders of PG&E and the other two big electric utilities in California.Newsom's plan does not offer any cash for PG&E's existing liabilities but would revise state law to give utilities more certainty about recovering costs from ratepayers — enough stability that Newsom believes will allow PG&E to borrow the money it needs to pay existing claims, according to the Bee.The bondholders include some of the biggest investors on Wall Street, including Elliott Management, Pimco and Apollo Global Management. They have been quietly promoting a PG&E restructuring plan for weeks in conversations with legislators, Newsom's aides and others. Tuesday's court filing marks the first time they have taken the proposal public."Substantial new capital must be infused into the company," the bondholders said in their court filing.The governor's office had no immediate comment on the bondholders' proposal.Like Newsom's plan, the proposal is "ratepayer neutral" — meaning, customer rates would not go up to pay the costs of getting PG&E out of bankruptcy.But ratepayers would pay: The plan calls for a .50 monthly charge, a feature of PG&E bills since the 2001 energy crisis, to be extended for several years to help raise dollars for a wildfire insurance fund proposed by Newsom last week. That fund would help pay claims for future fires.___Information from: The Sacramento Bee, http://www.sacbee.com 2574

来源：资阳报