南昌精神医院那里较好南昌如何治忧郁症,南昌市那里治幻幻症好,南昌专治神经病医院,南昌哪些医院神经病好,南昌比较好的精神医院,南昌失眠治疗好的医院,南昌抑郁该怎么样较快治疗好

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

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A group of Democratic California lawmakers called Monday for the state to invest 0 billion to drastically reduce its carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels by 2030.A resolution proposed by Democratic Sen. Henry Stern would set the non-binding goal and also declare a climate emergency, citing recent devastating wildfires and the impacts of air pollution on child asthma. It comes as Democrats in Congress advocate for the passage of the Green New Deal, a massive investment in rebuilding the nation's infrastructure and workforce to fight climate change."We have to live in California, hopefully for the rest of our lives, and hopefully in a way that doesn't burn down our homes, that doesn't make our kids sick (and) allows us to get to work without losing our minds in traffic," Stern said on the steps of the state Capitol with students from eight different University of California schools behind him.The 0 billion would be spent over 12 years and come from existing pots of money, including the state's carbon emissions auction program and a gas tax increase to fund transportation projects. The resolution would say all of that money should be spent toward projects that reduce, sequester or remove greenhouse gas emissions.While Stern's resolution would not be binding, Democratic state Assemblyman Todd Gloria has introduced legislation to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The state's current goal is eliminating fossil fuel use for electricity by 2045 and to achieve carbon neutrality by that year, meaning the state takes as much carbon out of the atmosphere as it puts in.The goals are aggressive and ambitious even for California, a state viewed as a global leader on confronting climate change. The 2045 clean energy goal passed the 80-member state Assembly last year by just four votes, with some Democrats voting against it.Gloria's proposal would require an "immediate phase out of fossil fuels.""The emergency facing our state, our nation, our world is climate change, and don't let anybody tell you anything different," Gloria said.Stern's proposal, meanwhile, would call for the elimination of fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2030. He does not propose eliminating fossil fuel use in transportation, but drastically diminishing it. 2313

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Nineteen states sued on Monday over the Trump administration's effort to alter a federal agreement that limits how long immigrant children can be kept in detention."We wish to protect children from irreparable harm," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said as he announced the lawsuit he is co-leading with Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. Both are Democrats.A 1997 agreement known as the Flores settlement says immigrant children must be kept in the least restrictive setting and generally shouldn't spend more than 20 days in detention.The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said last week it would create new regulations on how migrant children are treated. The administration wants to remove court oversight and allow families in detention longer than 20 days. About 475,000 families have crossed the border so far this budget year, nearly three times the previous full-year record for families.A judge must OK the Trump administration's proposed changes in order to end the agreement, and a legal battle is expected from the case's original lawyers.It's not likely that U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee would approve the changes; it was her ruling in 2015 that extended the application of the Flores agreement to include children who came with families. She ordered the Obama administration to release children as quickly as possible.Still, Becerra argued California has a role to play in the case because the state is home to so many immigrants."The federal government doesn't have a right to tell us how we provide for the well-being of people in our state," he said.California does not have any detention centers that house migrant families. The Trump administration argued that because no states license federal detention centers, they wanted to create their own set of standards in order to satisfy the judge's requirements that the facilities are licensed.They said they will be audited, and the audits made public. But the Flores attorneys are concerned that they will no longer be able to inspect the facilities, and that careful state licensing requirements will be eschewed.Becerra echoed that argument, saying that removing state authority over licensing centers could allow the federal government to place centers in California or other states that don't meet basic standards of care.Attorney General Bob Ferguson of Washington, also a Democrat, said prolonged detention will have long-term impacts on the mental and physical health of immigrant children and families."When we welcome those children into our communities, state-run programs and services bear the burden of the long-term impact of the trauma those children endured in detention," he said.California on Monday also sought to halt a Trump administration effort that could deny green cards to immigrants using public benefits.Other states joining the lawsuit are Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.__Associated Press journalists Colleen Long in Washington, D.C., and Rachel La Corte in Olympia, Washington, contributed to this report. 3247

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Senate will investigate a California utility's process for cutting off power to more than 2 million people to prevent wildfires.In a memo to the Senate Democratic Caucus on Thursday, Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins asked the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee to "begin investigating and reviewing options to address the serious deficiencies" with PG&E's current process of shutting off power to prevent wildfires.Atkins said an oversight hearing will be scheduled in the next few weeks.Last week, dry conditions and dangerous winds prompted PG&E to cut power to more than 700,000 customers to prevent its equipment from sparking wildfires.Gov. Gavin Newsom and other leaders said the outage lasted too long. Newsom has urged the utility to give rebates to affected customers and businesses. 877

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- A federal judge has sided with the Trump campaign's request to halt a California law that's aimed at forcing the president to release his tax returns.U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. said Thursday that he'll issue a formal ruling by Oct. 1.The ruling marks a major victory for Trump, who is fighting multiple Democratic-led efforts to force him to reveal the returns. California is expected to appeal.The Trump campaign and Republican parties have sued over the law requiring candidates to release their tax returns to appear on the March 2020 primary ballot.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the law in July.Lawyers for Trump and Republicans argue that it violates the U.S. Constitution by adding an additional requirement to run for president. They also said a federal law requiring presidents to disclose financial information supersedes state law. 898