Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Rutledge

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided February 24, 1984No. 3—83—0403Published

1DissentJustice Alloy

I respectfully dissent.

The basic argument of the defense on appeal is that section 24— 1(a)(2) does not apply to firearms, and, therefore, the information charging the defendant failed to state an offense. The People respond, asserting that a firearm is a dangerous weapon and may be used unlawfully against another, and that section 24 — 1(a)(2) includes firearms. Section 24 — 1(a)(2) states, in part,

“(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

* * *(2) Carries or possesses with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, a dagger, dirk, billy,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. SkeltonIllinois Supreme Court · 1980
  2. People v. KingAppellate Court of Illinois · 1978
  3. People v. MusselmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1966
  4. People v. ChapmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1979
  5. People v. ManzardoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API