DOJ Targets Two Connecticut Police Departments Over Alleged Gun Carry Permit Delays
The Justice Department is investigating whether police departments in two Connecticut cities are denying qualified gun owners their Second Amendment rights through unnecessary permit delays and a years-long appeals process.
The U.S. Department of Justice has launched federal civil rights investigations into two Connecticut police departments over allegations that they are improperly delaying or denying firearm carry permits, potentially leaving law-abiding residents unable to exercise their Second Amendment rights for years.
The investigations, announced on October 22, 2026, target the Waterbury and Middletown police departments. Federal officials will examine whether the municipalities are unlawfully obstructing residents seeking permits to carry firearms for self-defense.
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, through its Second Amendment Section, is investigating whether local authorities are unreasonably denying otherwise qualified applicants and forcing them into a lengthy administrative appeals process before they can exercise a constitutionally protected right.
The central issue is whether government officials can effectively deny Americans their right to bear arms simply by delaying the paperwork required to exercise it.
“All law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This right is not a luxury reserved for a privileged few, but a fundamental liberty for all, including the residents of Middletown and Waterbury, Connecticut.”
Federal Investigators Examine Alleged Second Amendment Violations
On October 22, the Justice Department sent formal notification letters to Waterbury Mayor Paul Pernerewski Jr. and Police Chief Fernando Spagnolo Jr., as well as Middletown Mayor Gene Nocera and Police Chief Erik Costa.
The Waterbury and Middletown letters explain that federal investigators will review each department’s policies and practices concerning the issuance of firearm carry permits under Connecticut General Statutes § 29-28, including the denial of applications and delays in reaching permitting decisions.
The investigations are being conducted under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, a federal civil rights statute prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives individuals of constitutional or federally protected rights.
Federal officials may interview municipal employees, police officers, and applicants who have dealt with the departments’ permitting systems. Investigators may also examine records and other information relevant to the departments’ procedures.
The Justice Department has not yet determined whether either municipality violated federal law. Both departments have been instructed to identify a point of contact within five business days of receiving their respective letters.
If investigators establish reasonable cause to believe unconstitutional practices are occurring, DOJ can publish its findings and seek corrective agreements with the municipalities. Should those efforts fail, the Attorney General is authorized to pursue litigation in federal district court.
For gun owners, the significance extends beyond the outcome of these particular investigations. Federal authorities are examining whether bureaucratic delays imposed by local law enforcement can amount to an unconstitutional denial of the right to bear arms.
Supreme Court Already Warned Against Abusive Gun Permit Delays
The Justice Department’s investigations rely heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary, law-abiding Americans to carry firearms publicly for self-defense.
Although Bruen struck down New York’s discretionary carry licensing requirement, the Court also warned that permitting systems could violate the Constitution when officials use administrative procedures to obstruct the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
In particular, the Court recognized that lengthy application processing times and excessive fees can turn a licensing system into an unconstitutional barrier to public carry.
That warning is directly relevant to the Connecticut investigations, where federal authorities suspect that qualified residents may be forced into appeals lasting years after being denied permission to carry.
The Second Amendment does not grant government officials the authority to decide when an individual’s constitutional rights become convenient to recognize. The right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, and the government cannot lawfully transform it into a privilege dependent on indefinite administrative approval.
A permitting system that leaves law-abiding Americans waiting years to exercise their right to armed self-defense raises precisely the constitutional concerns identified in Bruen. The government’s failure to process paperwork should not accomplish what an outright prohibition on carrying firearms could not.
Connecticut’s Gun Permit Appeals Backlog Exposes a Larger Problem
The federal investigations come against the backdrop of Connecticut’s longstanding problems with firearm permit appeals, where applicants challenging denials can face extraordinary delays before receiving a hearing.
According to a state audit reported in November 2025, the Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners had 1,203 unheard appeals as of March 13, 2024. Of those pending cases, 590 involved permit denials, while another 613 concerned revoked permits. At the time of the audit, hearings were already being scheduled through March 2026, illustrating just how far behind the state’s administrative appeals process had fallen.
The audit also revealed that the backlog was hardly a recent development. Similar problems had been identified in eight previous audit reports covering fiscal years 2001 through 2021.
The board reportedly scheduled 28 hearings per meeting but averaged only 12 actual hearings, in part because previously scheduled cases were resolved or withdrawn without enough notice to fill the vacant slots.
Those figures represent Connecticut’s statewide appeals system and do not establish that either Waterbury or Middletown caused the backlog. Nevertheless, they expose the consequences of a permitting structure in which citizens must rely on an already overwhelmed appeals board to challenge government decisions affecting their constitutional rights.
For an otherwise qualified applicant who has been denied a permit, an appeal that takes years offers little immediate relief. The individual remains unable to lawfully carry under the state’s permitting requirements while awaiting a government hearing that may not occur for an extended period.
The practical result is that a constitutional right can remain out of reach long after an applicant has attempted to comply with the state’s licensing requirements.
DOJ Expands Investigations Into Local Gun Permitting Abuses
The Connecticut investigations are the latest developments in a growing federal effort to confront local permitting practices that may interfere with Second Amendment rights.
On October 14, just eight days before the Connecticut announcement, the Justice Department opened a similar investigation into Pennsauken Township, New Jersey, over allegations that its police department subjected firearm applicants to unconstitutional delays.
As AmmoLand previously reported, federal officials are examining whether Pennsauken’s permitting procedures improperly prevent residents from exercising their right to purchase or carry firearms.
That investigation, like the Connecticut probes, invokes the Supreme Court’s warning in Bruen that licensing systems cannot be used to deprive ordinary Americans of their Second Amendment rights through unnecessary delays.
The investigations also demonstrate the expanding role of the Justice Department’s Second Amendment Section, which is using federal civil rights enforcement authority to examine alleged constitutional violations by state and local governments. Rather than limiting its attention to outright firearm bans, the department is scrutinizing the administrative obstacles that can prevent Americans from exercising their rights even when those rights are nominally recognized under state law.
A state does not need to prohibit public carry outright to obstruct it. If local officials can indefinitely delay applications, improperly deny permits, or force applicants into years of litigation and appeals, the practical consequences for the affected gun owner can resemble those of an outright ban.
A Constitutional Right Cannot Depend on Government Paperwork
The investigations into Waterbury and Middletown have not yet produced findings of wrongdoing, and federal officials have not announced when their reviews will conclude. However, the Justice Department’s willingness to examine local permitting practices under federal civil rights law represents an important development for Second Amendment enforcement.
For decades, gun owners in restrictive jurisdictions have faced layers of permits, fees, administrative requirements, and appeals simply to exercise a right expressly protected by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court made clear in Bruen that the Second Amendment protects carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home. That protection cannot be rendered meaningless by a government bureaucracy that refuses to process applications or leaves citizens trapped in an endless appeals system.
The right to bear arms does not originate with a police chief, a permitting board, or a bureaucrat behind a desk. It exists independently of government approval.
If federal investigators establish that local officials in Waterbury or Middletown have systematically delayed or denied qualified applicants their constitutional rights, those violations demand meaningful remedies for gun owners.
Connecticut residents and other Americans who believe government officials have violated their Second Amendment rights can submit complaints directly to the Justice Department’s Second Amendment Section.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.