濮阳东方医院看早泄咨询电话濮阳东方看男科病收费比较低,濮阳东方医院男科看早泄好吗,濮阳东方男科很便宜,濮阳东方男科医院公交路线,濮阳东方妇科收费正规,濮阳东方医院治早泄收费不贵,濮阳东方看妇科收费低不低

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. -- Governor Jerry Brown has agreed to deploy 400 National Guard troops at President Donald Trump’s request, according to the Associated Press.Brown specified that not all the troops will head to the U.S.-Mexico border and none will enforce federal immigration enforcement.The troops will focus on fighting drug crime, firearms smuggling and human tracking, a letter sent to the Trump by Brown Wednesday said.RELATED: Trump signs memo sending National Guard to secure border?"Combating these criminal threats are priorities for all Americans --Republicans and Democrats," Brown wrote. "That's why the state and the Guard have long supported this important work and agreed to similar targeted assistance in 2006 under President Bush and in 2010 under President Obama.""But let's be crystal clear on the scope of this mission," Brown wrote. "This will not be a mission to build a new wall. It will not be a mission to round up women and children or detain people escaping violence and seeking a better life. And the California National Guard will not be enforcing federal immigration laws."Governors in the border states of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico have already deployed troops to the border. Until Wednesday, California was the only state that didn’t respond to Trump’s request.RELATED: Texas Governor Greg Abbott to send additional National Guard troops to Mexico border?Trump has said he wants up to 4,000 troops to be sent to the border to combat illegal immigration and drug trafficking.Brown said the deployment will happen pending review and approval of the federal government. 1613

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A rookie Sacramento police officer was shot during a domestic violence call and lay wounded for about 45 minutes as the gunman kept officers at bay with bursts of fire, authorities said Thursday. She was finally rescued with an armored vehicle but died at a hospital."We are devastated," Deputy Chief Dave Peletta said. "There are no words to convey the depth of sadness we feel or how heartbroken we are for the family of our young, brave officer."Officer Tara O'Sullivan, 26, was shot Wednesday evening while helping a woman collect her belongings to leave her home. As officers swarmed the area, the gunman continued firing in a standoff that lasted about eight hours before he surrendered.Stephen Nasta, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former inspector with the New York Police Department, said taking 45 minutes to reach a wounded officer is "unacceptable."If officers couldn't immediately get an armored police vehicle to the scene, he said, they should have commandeered an armored bank vehicle, bus or heavy construction equipment."If there's somebody shot, lying on the ground, you have to do everything you can," Nasta said.If no such vehicle was available, he said he would expect police to use a diversionary tactic such as firing at the home, setting off smoke grenades or breaking a door or window in another part of the home to distract the gunman as other officers rescued the wounded comrade. Police said five other officers fired their weapons during the incident.Police identified the suspect as Adel Sambrano Ramos, 45, of Sacramento.His younger brother, Orlando Ramos, told The Associated Press that Adel Ramos is estranged from his family and has a long record that includes convictions for driving under the influence, drug use and domestic violence."It's the drugs, it's always been the drugs," Orlando Ramos said. "If he goes to prison for the rest of his life, I could care less."I'm a lot more heartbroken for seeing the pain in my mother and for the police officer and her family than I am for him going to prison," he said.He said he was sorry the shooting occurred and sent his condolences to the officer's family.O'Sullivan graduated from the police academy in December and was working with a training officer. She was expected to be on her own in a couple of weeks, Peletta said.She and other officers arrived at the home at 5:41 p.m. A half-hour later the first shots were fired, and O'Sullivan was hit, authorities said. The gunman continued firing a rifle-type weapon. At 6:54 p.m., additional officers responded with an armored vehicle to rescue O'Sullivan."Our officers maintained cover in safe positions until we were able to get an armored vehicle in the area," Sgt. Vance Chandler said.Five minutes later, O'Sullivan was taken to UC Davis Medical Center, where she died.The woman she was helping was not hurt. Orlando Ramos said she was Adel Ramos' girlfriend.O'Sullivan grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and graduated last year from Sacramento State University with a degree in child development.Mayor Darrell Steinberg said on Facebook that O'Sullivan was in the first graduating class of a groundbreaking program at Sacramento State that "emphasizes the importance of inclusion and cultural competence for future law enforcement leaders — of which Tara undoubtedly would have been."___Rodriguez reported from San Francisco. Associated Press writer Stefanie Dazio in Los Angeles contributed to this story. 3515

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California and 16 other states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its plans to scrap gas mileage standards and how much greenhouse gases vehicles can emit, Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced Tuesday.The suit takes aim at a plan by the Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate standards for vehicles manufactured between 2022 and 2025. The standards would have required vehicles to get 36 miles per gallon (58 kilometers per gallon) by 2025, about 10 miles (16 kilometers) over the existing standard.EPA administrator Scott Pruitt says the standards are not appropriate and need revision. They were set in 2012 when California and the Obama administration agreed to single nationwide fuel economy standard.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issuesCalifornia officials say the standards are achievable and the EPA's effort to roll them back is not based on any new research. They argue the plan violates the Clean Air Act and didn't follow the agency's own regulations.California has a unique waiver that allows it to set its own tailpipe emissions standards for vehicles, which it has used to combat smog and more recently global warming. Twelve other states have adopted the California standards as their own.Automakers have argued that the current requirements would have cost the industry billions of dollars and raised vehicle prices due to the cost of developing the necessary technology.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalThe lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Joining California are Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia. 1905

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — For decades, California and the federal government have had a co-parenting agreement when it comes to the state's diverse population of endangered species and the scarce water that keeps them alive.Now, it appears the sides could be headed for a divorce.State lawmakers sent to the governor early Saturday morning a bill aimed at stopping the Trump administration from weakening oversight of longstanding federal environmental laws in California. The lawmakers want to make it easier for state regulators to issue emergency regulations when that happens."The feds are taking away significant pieces of water protection law, of air protection law, and California has to step into the void," Democratic Assemblyman Mark Stone said.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to decide whether to veto the bill, sign it into law or allow it to become law without his signature.The bill survived a furious lobbying effort on the Legislature's final day, withstanding opposition from the state's water contractors and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein."We can't really have a California system and a federal system," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water to nearly 19 million people. "We're all in the same country here, so we need to find a way to make this work."California has a history of blunting Republican efforts at the federal level to roll back environmental protections. In 2003, shortly after the George W. Bush administration lowered federal Clean Air Act standards, the Legislature passed a law banning California air quality management districts from revising rules and regulations to match.More recently, after the Trump administration announced plans to roll back auto mileage and emission standards, Newsom used the state's regulatory authority to broker a deal with four major automakers to toughen the standards anyway.State lawmakers tried this last year, but a similar proposal failed to pass the state Assembly. But advocates say several recent announcements by the Trump administration — including plans to weaken application of the federal Endangered Species Act — have strengthened support for the bill.The bill would potentially play out most prominently in the management of the state's water, which mostly comes from snowmelt and rain that rushes through a complex system of aqueducts to provide drinking water for nearly 40 million people and irrigation to the state's billion agricultural industry.The bill would make it easier for state regulators to add animals protected under California's Endangered Species Act — animals that have historically been protected under federal law. It would then apply the state's Endangered Species Act to the Central Valley Project, a federally operated system of aqueducts and reservoirs that control flooding and supply irrigation to farmers.But it's not clear if a state law would apply to a federal project, "which could generate years of litigation and uncertainty over which environmental standards apply," according to a letter by Feinstein and four members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation.Plus, Kightlinger warns the proposal would disrupt complex negotiations among state and federal entities and water agencies over the Water Quality Control Plan. If all sides can sign these voluntary agreements, it would avert costly litigation that would delay environmental protections for fish and other species impacted by the water projects."We're pretty close. We believe we can get to completion by December. If (this bill) passes, half of the water districts pull out and go to litigation instead," Kightlinger said. "That's something that would be terrible for our ecosystem and what we're trying to achieve here."Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, the bill's author, insisted early Saturday the bill would not impact those voluntary agreements."We really and truly did work in good faith to try to address those concerns," she said. 4049