宜宾哪里纹眼线好(宜宾开双眼皮医生) (今日更新中)

Right after the mass shooting at a Florida high school earlier this year, Dick's Sporting Goods decided to stop selling assault-style weapons at its stores.Now the nation's largest sporting goods retailer is going to destroy those guns."We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change," the company told CNN."We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations."A company spokesman wouldn't say how the guns would be destroyed.Dick's was one of a number of retailers that made changes to their gun sales policy after the February 14 massacre at Marjory Stonemen High School that killed 17 students and staff.Around the same time, Walmart said it would also raise the age restriction for purchase of firearms and ammunition to 21. It also removed items from its website that resembled assault-style rifles, "including nonlethal airsoft guns and toys."L.L. Bean and Kroger (which sells guns through its Fred Meyer stores) both raised their minimum gun buying age to 21.Dick's CEO Edward Stack said he and other company executives were moved by the Parkland school shooting survivor's push for gun control measures. And he said the company was alarmed after learning that school shooter Nikolas Cruz had bought a gun at Dick's, although not the AR-15-style rifle used in the February 14 massacre."We don't want to be a part of this story any longer," he told CNN's New Day back in February. 1530

RICHMOND, Va. — Crews have arrived to remove a statue of Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart from Richmond's Monument Avenue — an area of the city that contains several Confederate statues that Mayor Levar Stoney has promised to remove.The J.E.B. Stuart monument is one of about a dozen statues Stoney has ordered be removed from city property.Statues of Confederate General Stonewall Jackson and Confederate Naval Commander Matthew Fontaine Maury were removed from Monument Avenue last week and taken to an undisclosed location. A statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis was toppled by protesters last month.A statue to Confederate General Robert E. Lee is located on state-owned property and could be removed once legal challenges to its removal make their way through court.The Stuart statue, erected in 1907, is the first monument Stoney promised would be removed following the holiday weekend.The mayor said it would cost .8 million to remove the statues. He said the money would come from the Department of Public Works and be reimbursed by a private fund.While city attorney Haskell Brown told Richmond City Council that Stoney did not have the power to remove statues, Stoney said he believed he is on sound legal ground to remove the statues using his emergency powers as the Emergency Management Director."That's in our Emergency Operations Plan. That is also the part of the governor's declaration of emergency that I'm the emergency manager," Stoney said. "And also, the City Council spoke to this in June 8, when they passed a resolution ordinance that gave me such powers."Stoney said over the course of the last several weeks, thousands have gathered in the city, and there have been more than 139 calls of service along the Monument Avenue corridor.The mayor said failing to remove the statues presented a severe, immediate and growing threat to public safety.Stoney said the removed statues would be placed in temporary storage while Richmond enters a 60-day administrative process during which the city will solicit public input while determining the fate of the statues.This story was originally published by Gabrielle Harmon and Scott Wise on WTVR in Richmond, Virginia. 2206

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. (KGTV) -- As Californias head out to vote, many important propositions and measures are on the ballot this November.One of those initiatives is Proposition 16.If approved, Prop 16 would repeal Proposition 209 from the state constitution which, according to BallotPedia, banned the use of affirmative action involving sex or race-based preferences.Those in support of Proposition 16 argue that it takes a step toward “dismantling structural racism and sexism.”Meanwhile, those opposed to the proposition point to Prop 209 as to why voters should mark "no" on the ballot. “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting,” the website states in reference to a passage from Prop 209.See what a vote for or against Proposition means below, according to the state's voter guide:YES: A YES vote on this measure means: State and local entities could consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting to the extent allowed under federal and state law.NO: A NO vote on this measure means: The current ban on the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting would remain in effect. 1452

Sacramento police officers shot and killed a black man in his grandmother's backyard because they believed he was pointing a gun at them, police said.But investigators say they did not find a weapon at the scene, only a cell phone near the man's body.The fatal shooting of Stephon Clark on Sunday night was recorded by two officers' body cameras and from a police helicopter; that footage was released Wednesday.The videos show a brief encounter between police and Clark, lasting less than a minute, from the moment one of the officers spotted him in the driveway and yelled, "Hey, show me your hands. Stop. Stop."In the dark, the two police officers chased Clark into the backyard of his grandmother's home."Show me your hands!" one of the officers yelled. "Gun, gun, gun."Then police opened fire. Clark crumpled to the ground, momentarily tried to crawl before falling motionless as more shots erupted around him.His death has caused outrage among residents who say that the officers should be held accountable for his death. Police have said the officers fired only because they thought their lives were at stake.As more police arrived at the scene, someone is heard asking "What did he have on him?"An officer responded, "Like this, something in his hands. It looked like a gun from our perspective."Minutes after the shooting, as more officers arrive on the scene, a voice is heard saying, "Hey, mute," and the audio on the body camera cuts off.Clark's grandmother said she was inside the house when the shots were fired and saw him with an iPhone."He was right there dead. I told the officers, you guys are murderers, murderers, murderers," she told the Sacramento Bee. 1683

来源：资阳报