The Justice Department is investigating Middletown and Waterbury over claims local police unnecessarily delay firearm permits, putting Second Amendment rights for law-abiding residents at stake.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has opened a probe into two Connecticut cities to determine whether their police departments are unnecessarily delaying firearm permits for residents, The Center Square reported.
The announcement, described as coming Thursday, centers on the permitting systems run by the Middletown and Waterbury police departments. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon framed the inquiry as a defense of a basic constitutional liberty.
Dhillon said law-abiding Americans hold a clear right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
"All law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms for self‑defense,"
She added that the right belongs to ordinary people, not a select class.
"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."
Dhillon went further on the local departments’ practices. She said they may be shutting out qualified applicants and then trapping them in a long appeals maze.
"The Middletown and Waterbury police departments may be unreasonably denying otherwise qualified applicants a CCW permit and forcing them to undergo a potentially years-long appeal process to exercise this fundamental right,"
Neither the local governments nor Connecticut Attorney General William Tong offered immediate comment. Tong’s office would likely defend the cities if the probe turns into litigation.
The Justice Department’s language tracks the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling held that the right to keep and bear arms applies with equal force inside and outside the home.
The Court also warned against processing delays that gut the right in practice. It pointed to “lengthy wait times in processing license applications” that effectively “deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”
Connecticut already runs one of the nation’s tighter gun-control regimes. Residents who get denied at the local level can appeal to the Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, a nine-member panel.
A 2025 state audit found that board sat on a backlog of 1,203 cases. Applicants were waiting months just to get a hearing. That kind of queue turns a paper right into a practical barrier.
The Middletown and Waterbury probe lands while the state fights multiple firearms challenges. Connecticut is defending its 1994 “assault weapon” ban and newer open-carry limits in public places. Lawmakers also approved a post-Sandy Hook assault weapon ban in 2013 after a lone gunman killed 20 children and six educators.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley temporarily blocked another Connecticut statute. That law banned the sale of handguns that can be converted into “virtual machine guns” with a device known as a Glock switch, which raises the rate of fire.
Dooley wrote that the measure clashes with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation and was likely unconstitutional. She issued a preliminary injunction that stops the law from taking effect while the case continues.
Taken together, the federal investigation, the state appeals backlog, and the recent injunction show a pattern: Connecticut keeps layering restrictions and process, and courts and the Justice Department keep testing whether those layers still leave room for the Second Amendment.
The Civil Rights Division’s stated goal is straightforward, to decide whether Middletown and Waterbury are forcing otherwise qualified residents to wait or appeal for years before they can carry for self-defense. Local police control the front door on permits. When that door stays shut, the right shrinks.
Constitutional rights do not improve with age in a filing cabinet. When police departments and state boards stretch lawful applicants into multi-year limbo, the Second Amendment becomes a promise on paper instead of a right people can actually use.
