宜宾玻尿酸注射隆鼻(宜宾双眼皮术后注意事项) (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

Ru-El Sailor is still not completely a free man, even after he was released from prison last week, moments after his 2003 murder conviction was vacated in Cuyahoga County, Ohio court.Sailor now ordered to wear an ankle monitor for 120 days, due to an Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction regulation that requires those released from a maximum security prison to be monitored and not leave the state.The ankle monitor requirement was imposed, even though Sailor spent 15 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.Sailor believes a change in state law is needed to prevent this from happening to others exonerated here in Ohio."Desperately needs to be changed, desperately needs to be changed," said Sailor."If I have to be the one that has to bite the bullet first and open the door for others, then I don't mind biting the bullet.""I'll wear this ankle monitor for four months or a year if I have to, if it's going to make change for other people behind me to come and not have to go through the same things I went through," he said.Black on Black Crime Incorporated, which also fought for Sailor's release, along with the Ohio Innocence Project, agrees a change in ankle monitor requirements are needed in cases of wrongful conviction.Black on Black Crime Inc. President Al Porter Jr. said his organization will ask for a change in state law."The state law definitely does have to be changed," said Porter."We will stand also to make sure that the next person doesn't have to go through this, especially once they've been freed, and proven innocent beyond a shadow of doubt."Sailor's legal team said it is working to resolve the ankle monitor situation.Meanwhile, Sailor told News 5 the ankle monitor isn't stopping him from working on starting his own business.Sailor said he would like to create a service that would shuttle family members who want to visit loved in prison across the state. 1927

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- Authorities gathered Wednesday to announce that a suspect in the decades-long Golden State killer case was arrested.Joseph James DeAngelo, 72, was arrested in connection with a series of killings, rapes and burglaries. DeAngelo is suspected of killing a least 12 people, raping at least 45 women and committing more than 120 burglaries in the decade between 1976 and 1986.Most of the crimes took place near Sacramento and in the east Bay Area, authorities said Wednesday.RELATED: Suspect identified, arrested in East Area Rapist/Golden State Killer caseClick through the timeline below to see a list of major events in the case: 670

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's attorney general said Tuesday that he won't charge two Sacramento police officers who fatally shot an unarmed black man last year, a killing that set off intense protests.Attorney General Xavier Becerra's announcement follows the Sacramento district attorney's finding this weekend that the two officers broke no laws when they shot 22-year-old Stephon Clark.Officers Terrance Mercadal and Jared Robinet say they mistakenly thought Clark was approaching them with a gun after he ran from them into his grandparents' backyard as police investigated vandalism.Becerra said his review found officers believed Clark was armed and their lives were in danger when they opened fire. Investigators found only a cellphone.RELATED: No charges for Sacramento officers who fatally shot Stephon Clark"Based on our review of the facts and evidence in relation to the law, I'm here to announce today that our investigation has concluded that no criminal charges against the officers involved in the shooting can be sustained," Becerra said.The attorney general emphasized the need for changes and called Clark's killing a "devastating loss." He met with Clark's mother, SeQuette Clark, before announcing his decision. Jamilia Land, a family spokesperson, said SeQuette Clark would speak to reporters later Tuesday.Clark was shot seven times on March 18, 2018, and his killing prompted protests in California's capital city and across the U.S. Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert's decision not to charge the officers has sparked new demonstrations, with more than 80 people arrested Monday in a wealthy Sacramento neighborhood.Clark's family and black community leaders urged Becerra to reach a different conclusion."I would like for the attorney general to prosecute the officers," brother Stevante Clark said Sunday. "I want justice and accountability."Both Becerra and Schubert concluded that the officers feared for their lives when they shot Clark, who they thought was holding a gun. They were pursuing him after receiving calls about someone breaking car windows.The attorney general and district attorney said the evidence showed Clark was advancing toward the officers when they shot him.The decision has increased support from top state officials to change California's legal standard for when police can use deadly force.Lawmakers have revived a measure introduced after Clark's slaying that would make California the first state to allow police to use deadly force only when it's necessary to prevent imminent and serious injury or death and if there's no reasonable alternative, such as warnings or other methods.Strong opposition from law enforcement agencies stalled it last year. 2747

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP and KGTV) — A bill that would end California's bail system and replace it with a risk assessment system is headed to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk. State Senate approved the bill with a vote of 26-12 Tuesday afternoon. If signed into law, it would make California the first state to completely end bail for suspects waiting for trial. Senators who support the bill say it would end a system that discriminates against low income people. Those in opposition argue that the measure would make communities less safe. If signed into law, the plan calls for the release of most suspects arrested for nonviolent misdemeanors within 12 hours. Those accused of serious, violent felonies wouldn't be released before their trials. Courts and California's Judicial Council would have discretion to determine whether or not to release other suspects based on the likelihood they will return to court and the danger they pose to the public.   999

来源：资阳报