The Waterbury Times- Special Report- Oct 25, 2026

Waterbury- The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a federal civil rights investigation into the Waterbury and Middletown police departments over concerns that their firearm permitting practices may be unreasonably delaying or denying residents their right to carry a gun for self-defense.

Announced on October 22, the investigation puts Waterbury under federal scrutiny over a process that can determine whether an otherwise qualified resident receives permission to carry a pistol or revolver. Federal officials are examining whether applicants have faced unnecessary delays or denials that force them into lengthy administrative appeals before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The investigation does not establish that Waterbury police violated the law. The Justice Department has not announced findings of wrongdoing, and the public record does not yet establish how many Waterbury residents have been affected, how long local applications have taken to process, or why federal investigators selected Waterbury and Middletown.

But the investigation raises questions that reach beyond two police departments: How long should a qualified Connecticut resident have to wait for a firearm permit? What happens when an application is denied? And can administrative delays become so extensive that a constitutional right is effectively unavailable?

For Waterbury, those questions now have the attention of the federal government.

WHAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS INVESTIGATING

According to the Justice Department’s October 22 announcement, the Civil Rights Division is investigating the firearm permitting systems operated by the Waterbury and Middletown police departments.

The inquiry centers on whether local authorities are unnecessarily delaying permit issuance or unreasonably denying applications from otherwise qualified residents. Federal officials also expressed concern that applicants may be forced into an appeals process that takes years to resolve.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the Civil Rights Division, said the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense is not reserved for a privileged group but applies to law-abiding residents, including those in Waterbury and Middletown.

The department is approaching the matter as a potential civil rights issue under the Second Amendment, rather than simply as a question of customer service or administrative efficiency.

That distinction is important.

An agency can experience ordinary processing delays without necessarily violating someone’s constitutional rights. The federal question is whether the policies and practices in place improperly obstruct the rights of eligible applicants.

The investigation will examine the permitting systems themselves. The public announcement does not identify a specific Waterbury officer, name individual complainants, disclose the number of complaints received, or establish that every delayed application was improperly handled.

Those details remain unknown.

WHY WATERBURY AND MIDDLETOWN?

One of the central unanswered questions is why federal investigators selected these two Connecticut municipalities.

The Connecticut Mirror reported October 23 that the Justice Department had not publicly explained why Waterbury and Middletown were singled out or whether the investigations form part of a broader effort to examine firearm permitting practices across the country.

That leaves an important gap in the public record.

The announcement establishes that the Justice Department has opened investigations into both departments. It does not establish that Waterbury has the worst processing times in Connecticut, that its practices are worse than those of neighboring cities, or that investigators have already substantiated allegations of misconduct.

There are several questions the public deserves answers to:

• How many local pistol permit applications has Waterbury received annually?
• What percentage were approved, denied, or left pending?
• What is the average and longest processing time?
• How many applicants appealed a denial?
• How many applicants waited beyond the applicable statutory deadlines?
• Did delays result from local administrative decisions, background-check processing, staffing limitations, or another cause?

The publicly available reporting reviewed for this article does not provide a verified Waterbury-specific dataset answering those questions.

Without those figures, readers cannot determine the scale of the alleged problem or compare Waterbury’s performance with that of other municipalities.

The investigation may help establish those facts. For now, the reason Waterbury was selected remains an open question.

WATERBURY’S RESPONSE: THE CITY SAYS IT WILL COOPERATE

Waterbury officials have acknowledged the investigation.

According to the Connecticut Mirror, police spokesperson Sgt. Joseph Morais confirmed that the department was aware of the federal inquiry and would cooperate fully. Mayor Paul Pernerewski Jr. also issued a statement acknowledging the investigation and confirming the city’s intention to cooperate with the Justice Department.

The mayor’s statement read:

“The city takes its responsibilities seriously and expects to fully cooperate with the Department of Justice throughout the investigation.”

The city declined further comment while the investigation remains ongoing.

That response does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing. It establishes the city’s stated position that it will participate in the federal review.

Middletown has also acknowledged the investigation. In an October 23 release, its police department confirmed receiving notice that the Justice Department was reviewing the city’s policies and practices under Connecticut General Statutes § 29-28. The department said it takes the matter seriously and is committed to transparency and cooperation.

The two departments now face a common question: Can they demonstrate that their permitting practices comply with state law and do not unlawfully interfere with constitutional rights?

CONNECTICUT’S EIGHT-WEEK RULE: WHAT THE LAW SAYS

Understanding the investigation requires looking at Connecticut’s firearm permitting process.

Under Connecticut law, residents generally begin by applying for a local pistol permit through the police chief or other appropriate local permitting authority. If the local permit is granted, the applicant can proceed through the state permitting process. The state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection oversees the issuance of state pistol permits.

Connecticut General Statutes § 29-28 governs permits to carry pistols and revolvers.

The statute also addresses delays involving national criminal history checks. Under the applicable provision, when the required national background-check results have not arrived within eight weeks after a sufficient application is submitted, the local permitting authority must inform the applicant of the delay in writing. Once those results are received, the local authority must inform the applicant and render a decision within one week.

The eight-week provision should not be misrepresented as a universal guarantee that every applicant will receive a final permit decision within 56 days under every circumstance. The statute distinguishes between the local permitting process and delays associated with outstanding background-check results.

That distinction matters when evaluating a complaint.

A delay caused by an outstanding federal background check is not automatically the same as a municipality deliberately withholding a decision. Conversely, a department cannot assume that every delay is justified simply because firearm applications require background investigations.

Investigators will need to examine the actual circumstances, applicable legal requirements, and departments’ policies and practices.

The relevant questions include when an application was complete, when fingerprints and identifying information were forwarded, when background-check results were received, what action the department took, and whether the applicant received required notices.

Those records can help establish whether delays were routine administrative problems or evidence of a potentially unlawful practice.

THE NUMBERS: CONNECTICUT’S FIREARM APPEALS BACKLOG

Although the Justice Department has not released Waterbury-specific application statistics, Connecticut has documented a substantial backlog in a related part of the permitting system.

A state audit reported in 2025 found that the Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners had 1,203 unheard appeals as of March 13, 2024.

The pending cases consisted of:

• 590 appeals involving permit denials
• 613 appeals involving revoked permits

The audit found that hearings were being scheduled through March 2026, illustrating the extent of the delay confronting applicants seeking administrative review. The report also described recurring problems documented across eight previous audit reports covering fiscal years 2001 through 2021.

The breakdown is revealing.Statewide appeals measureReported figureUnheard appeals as of March 13, 20241,203Appeals involving permit denials590Appeals involving revoked permits613Share involving denials49.0%Share involving revocations51.0%Prior audit reports identifying recurring problems8

Source: Connecticut state audit findings reported by CT Insider. Percentages are calculated from the reported figures. These figures describe the statewide appeals backlog, not Waterbury’s local permit applications.

The numbers demonstrate that Connecticut’s appeals system has faced a significant backlog.

They do not establish that all 1,203 people were waiting for the same amount of time, that every appeal was meritorious, or that Waterbury was responsible for any particular portion of the backlog.

They also do not measure the number of people waiting for an initial local permit. An appeal generally follows an adverse permitting decision, whereas the federal investigation is examining local permitting practices that may involve both delays and denials.

That distinction is essential.

Nevertheless, a system with more than 1,200 unheard appeals raises a serious public-administration question: What meaningful remedy does an applicant have if challenging a denial requires an extended wait?

A person may eventually prevail on appeal, but a decision delivered years later cannot provide the same timely relief as a properly functioning process.

The audit findings provide statewide context for the Justice Department’s concerns about lengthy appeals. They do not, on their own, prove a constitutional violation by either Waterbury or Middletown.

THE SUPREME COURT CASE AT THE CENTER OF THE PROBE

The Justice Department’s announcement relies on the constitutional principles addressed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In that case, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, subject to constitutionally permissible regulation.

The Court also warned that licensing systems can become unconstitutional when officials use them to obstruct the exercise of that right. Its discussion specifically addressed the danger of lengthy processing times and excessive fees that effectively deny ordinary citizens the ability to carry firearms in public.

The ruling did not eliminate all firearm permitting requirements. States can continue to impose lawful eligibility requirements and conduct background investigations.

The constitutional question is whether those requirements are administered in a manner consistent with the right the Court recognized.

That is where the Waterbury investigation becomes significant.

If an applicant is legally ineligible for a permit, a denial supported by applicable law is different from an unexplained refusal to act on an eligible applicant’s completed application.

Likewise, a reasonable period needed to conduct a required background investigation is different from a pattern of avoidable delays that leaves qualified residents unable to exercise a protected right.

The Justice Department is investigating whether Waterbury and Middletown have crossed that line.

It has not yet announced that either department has done so.

A BROADER FEDERAL EFFORT TO EXAMINE GUN PERMITTING

Waterbury’s investigation is not occurring in isolation.

On October 14, 2026, the Justice Department announced an investigation into Pennsauken Township, New Jersey, over allegations that its police department imposed unjustified delays in issuing firearm licenses. The department’s announcement also invoked Bruen and the constitutional implications of excessive permitting delays.

The Pennsauken investigation preceded the Connecticut announcement by eight days.

Together, the investigations indicate that the Justice Department is examining whether local administrative practices can improperly restrict the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

That does not establish that the three municipalities have identical practices or that the cases will reach the same outcome.

Each investigation must be evaluated on its own evidence.

For Waterbury, the immediate significance is that the federal government has placed the city’s firearm permitting procedures under formal review. The investigation could examine how applications are handled, how denials are documented, how long decisions take, and whether local procedures comply with state and federal law.

The results will depend on what the evidence shows.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Justice Department has not announced a completion date for the Waterbury or Middletown investigations.

The federal announcement describes an inquiry into the departments’ permitting systems, not a final determination that they violated the law. The Connecticut Mirror reported that the notification letters expressly stated that investigators had not reached conclusions about the subject of the investigation.

The process could involve reviewing departmental records, examining policies, interviewing relevant personnel, and evaluating information provided by applicants.

Several outcomes are possible.

The investigation could close without a finding of unlawful conduct. If the evidence does not establish a pattern or practice that violates protected rights, the department can close its inquiry.

Investigators could identify problems requiring corrective action. Depending on the evidence and applicable law, federal officials could seek changes to procedures or other measures intended to bring a department into compliance.

The dispute could lead to litigation. If the Justice Department establishes grounds for federal enforcement and a resolution cannot be reached, litigation may become an option.

The outcome will depend on the investigation’s findings and the legal authority applicable to the case.

For Waterbury residents, the immediate issue is whether the investigation produces answers about the city’s application process and whether any necessary changes follow.

THE QUESTIONS WATERBURY RESIDENTS DESERVE ANSWERED

The investigation creates an opportunity for a more detailed examination of how Waterbury handles firearm permits.

Several records and data points would help the public understand the issue.

Application volume: How many local pistol permit applications did Waterbury receive in 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 to date?

Processing times: What were the median, average, and longest waiting periods for completed applications in each year?

Outcomes: How many applications were approved, denied, withdrawn, or still pending?

Statutory compliance: How many applicants waited beyond applicable deadlines, and how often were written notices of delay issued?

Appeals: How many Waterbury denials were appealed to the state Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, and how long did those cases take to resolve?

Staffing and procedures: How many personnel handle firearm permit applications, and have changes in staffing, technology, or policy affected processing times?

Federal inquiry: What specific practices prompted the Justice Department’s investigation, and what records or corrective measures has the department requested?

The answers would allow readers to distinguish isolated delays from broader administrative problems.

They would also provide a factual basis for comparing Waterbury’s performance with Middletown and other Connecticut municipalities.

The publicly available reporting reviewed for this article does not establish those local figures. They should be obtained from official records rather than inferred from the statewide appeals backlog.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The Justice Department’s investigation places Waterbury’s firearm permitting process under federal scrutiny at a time when Connecticut’s appeals system has documented a substantial backlog.

The statewide figures are concerning: 1,203 unheard appeals, including 590 involving denials and 613 involving revocations, as of March 13, 2024. But those numbers describe the state appeals board, not Waterbury’s local processing performance.

The federal investigation will have to establish whether the city’s policies or practices unnecessarily delay permits, unreasonably deny otherwise qualified applicants, or otherwise interfere with constitutionally protected rights.

Waterbury has said it will cooperate.

The next step is evidence: application records, processing times, decisions, appeals, and a clear explanation of how the department administers the permitting process.

For residents, the central question is straightforward: Is Waterbury processing firearm permit applications lawfully and within the requirements of the applicable law, or are administrative practices preventing qualified residents from exercising their constitutional rights?

The Justice Department has opened the investigation. The answer remains to be established.

The Waterbury Times will continue following this story as additional records, official responses, and findings become available.