Court Opinion

ID: 9526503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:18:53.09125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:16.474113
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CALLUM, dissenting: Because I believe the weapon here satisfies the dictionary definition of metal knuckles and because I believe other considerations weigh in favor of concluding that the weapon constitutes metal knuckles, I respectfully dissent. The majority cites several dictionary definitions of metal or brass knuckles and concludes, without explanation, that the weapon here does not fit any of the definitions. I disagree. The weapon certainly consists of “a set of rings” — specifically, two — “attached to a bar that can be fitted over the fingers” — there is a bar over the metal rings— “to increase the impact of a blow with the fist” — the weapon here certainly increases the impact of a blow. American Heritage Dictionary _(4th ed._). Turning to the Webster’s definition, I believe that the weapon in question satisfies its definition of brass knuckles: it consists of “a set of four metal finger rings or guards” — our weapon has two rings/loops and two guards — “attached to a transverse piece” — the weapon has a bar or transverse piece over the two finger rings and a transverse piece across the underside of the rings and rests — “and worn over the front of the doubled fist for use as a weapon.” (Emphasis added.) Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 269 (1986).4 Unless the majority is making the dubious assertion that there must be four rings or four guards — it must concede that this item fits the Webster’s definition. I disagree with the majority’s assertion that the item’s appearance undermines the argument that it is a set of metal knuckles. The majority appears to believe that the item must be either a set of metal knuckles or a knife, but not both. I see no reason to limit the inquiry in this way. Further, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the item does not constitute metal knuckles because it may be used in a slashing manner. Although this may be the case, it does not take away from the weapon’s primary means of use — in a punching or jabbing manner. Metal knuckles with blades attached to them are still metal knuckles. I also disagree with the majority’s assertion that it would be unjust to classify the weapon here as a set of metal knuckles. According to the majority, if we were to do so, then any object could be classified as a set of metal knuckles based solely on the way that it is gripped, notwithstanding that the object would not inflict injury primarily because the grip makes contact with the victim. This argument is, again, premised on the assumption that the object must be either a set of metal knuckles or a knife, which I reject. The majority’s assertion that it would be unjust to classify the weapon as metal knuckles solely on the way that it is gripped ignores the dictionary definitions of metal or brass knuckles. In addition to specifying the way that it is gripped, those definitions require that the weapon increase the impact of a blow with the fist, which clearly this does, or be worn over the doubled fist for use as a weapon, which this is. Next, the majority asserts that it makes little sense to conclude that the legislature intended the weapon to be classified as metal knuckles simply because it is gripped, in part, through two metal loops, notwithstanding that it is neither designed nor used like a traditional set of metal knuckles. I disagree with this reasoning. The item here consists of a base that is clearly a set of traditional metal knuckles.5 Affixed to the base are several small blades and one long blade. It is designed to be used like a traditional set of metal knuckles — to increase the impact of a blow or punch when the object makes contact with the victim. I fail to see how it makes little sense to classify the item as metal knuckles when it is designed as a set of metal knuckles and is intended to be used in the manner of metal knuckles. The blades certainly make the weapon more dangerous than a traditional set of metal knuckles, but I do not believe their presence precludes classifying the item as metal knuckles. In my view, it is immaterial that the item might also satisfy the definition of a knife. As the majority notes, the legislature placed metal knuckles in the per se unlawful category: their mere possession is a crime, without the need to demonstrate an unlawful purpose. I doubt that the legislature intended that people could skirt this prohibition by attaching knife blades to the metal knuckles, thereby making them even more dangerous. Next, I find the majority’s reliance on Whitfield to be misplaced. Whitfield is clearly distinguishable, as the item there did not satisfy the definition of metal knuckles. That weapon did not consist of finger rings or guards and was not designed to protect the knuckles and increase the impact of a punch. Finally, I disagree with the majority’s assertion that the main injury to a victim here would be a large blade buried in the victim’s body and that this is not an injury that results from a powerful punch or blow. The weapon is designed to inflict injury by increasing the power or impact of a blow. That it does so via a blade buried in the victim’s body does not, in my view, take away from the fact that it satisfies the definition of metal knuckles. In summary, I would affirm the trial court’s order.  I do not address at length the Black’s Law Dictionary definition, as even the majority concedes that it is broad enough to encompass the weapon in question. See Black’s Law Dictionary 188 (6th ed. 1990).   For this reason, I find the majority’s reliance on cases construing the term “bludgeon” (720 ILCS 5/24 — 1(a)(1) (West 2000)) to be misplaced. Those cases instruct that Illinois courts have rejected construing the term broadly to include any club-like weapon. See, e.g., Vue, 353 Ill. App. 3d at 780. Here, in contrast, the base of the weapon is unquestionably a set of traditional metal knuckles.