Mayor Adrian Fenty on Friday urged the D.C. Council to take up anti-crime legislation at the same time it considers new gun laws and broad legislation to tackle gangs, firearms, domestic violence, witness tampering, DNA collection and blood testing.
“This legislation reflects my strong commitment to keep guns out of the hands of repeat felony offenders even as the District works to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision,” Fenty said in a statement.
But forcing the 35-page omnibus bill through the council within this legislative session is improbable, said Councilman Phil Mendelson, chairman of the Public Safety and Judiciary Committee. Mendelson’s panel last took up an omnibus crime bill in 2005 — the measure won council approval a year and a half later.
“Not only is the council’s agenda overflowing, but there are only two months left,” Mendelson said.
Mendelson said there may be particular issues within the legislation that could be pulled out and moved this fall, but the measure was “dropped so late it will be difficult to move the entire bill.”
“Phil Mendelson should be concerned that in the next two months we’re going to see another 20, 30, 40 homicides,” said Kristopher Baumann, president of the police union. “We need to rethink our priorities.”
Among the bill’s provisions:
— A mandatory, minimum-two-year sentence for felons convicted of firearm possession, and five years if the felon was previously convicted of a violent crime.
— Criminalizing the illegal discharge of a weapon with a five-year prison sentence.
— Revising the definition of a “gang” from six to three members.
— Requiring DNA collection from all alleged felons.
— Making khat, an amphetamine-like drug, a Schedule IV substance.
— Mandating HIV testing for criminal defendants at any time after a preliminary hearing.
The legislation also would require hospital employees and other medical personnel to draw the blood of a drunken-driving suspect at the direction of a police officer, with or without the suspect’s permission. The measure provides civil and criminal immunity for the blood collector, but also imposes civil fines for refusing to perform the medical procedure.
“That’s going to be a huge problem,” said one leader in the nonprofit medical community who declined to be named because he hadn’t seen the bill. “They’re not going to do it.”
