## Facts

- Jason William DeCiccio was moving his possessions, including an extensive weapons collection, from his mother’s home in Clinton, Connecticut, to a rented room in Bolton, Massachusetts.
- While driving his Jeep Cherokee in Clinton, DeCiccio rear-ended a vehicle stopped at a traffic light, causing a multi-vehicle collision.
- Police responded and, during the investigation, found multiple weapons in the Jeep, including a dirk knife and a police baton.
- DeCiccio was transporting the weapons as part of his move between residences.
- The State charged DeCiccio with six counts of having a weapon in a motor vehicle under Conn. Gen. Stat. (Rev. to 2009) § 29-38(a).
- A jury convicted him on two counts based on the dirk knife and the police baton; the trial court rendered judgment on the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether § 29-38(a) is unconstitutionally vague as applied because “dirk knife” and “police baton” are insufficiently defined to provide fair notice.
2. Whether § 29-38(a), as applied to prohibit transporting a dirk knife and police baton by motor vehicle while moving from one residence to another, violates the Second Amendment.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court held that § 29-38(a) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied; the terms “dirk knife” and “police baton” provided adequate notice.
- The Court held that possession of a dirk knife and a police baton in the home is protected by the Second Amendment.
- The Court held that a categorical statutory bar on transporting those weapons by motor vehicle from a former residence to a new residence, as applied to DeCiccio, impermissibly burdened the home-possession right.
- Because the jury found (and the State acknowledged) that DeCiccio was transporting the weapons between residences when they were found, the convictions could not stand.
- The Court reversed the judgment of conviction.

## Legal Principles

- An as-applied vagueness challenge turns on whether the statute provided fair notice and sufficient enforcement standards in light of the defendant’s conduct, not on hypothetical applications.
- The Second Amendment protects “arms” beyond firearms, including weapons in common lawful use that are not “dangerous and unusual.”
- The right to keep arms in the home includes the practical ability to move those arms from one lawful residence to another; a categorical prohibition on motor-vehicle transport incident to such a move can violate the Second Amendment as applied.
- Once conduct falls within the Second Amendment’s scope, the State must justify the burden with an adequate fit to public-safety interests; an absolute ban lacking a transport accommodation may fail that review.

## Conclusion

The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected DeCiccio’s vagueness claim but reversed his convictions because applying § 29-38(a) to bar motor-vehicle transport of a dirk knife and police baton while moving between residences impermissibly infringed the Second Amendment right to possess those arms in the home.


State v. DeCiccio, 315 Conn. 79, 105 A.3d 165 (Conn. 2014)