DOJ Probes Middletown, Waterbury Gun Permit Delays

Last updated October 2026 · By Nick Hall, who tracks Connecticut permit law and every move by the Justice Department’s Second Amendment Section for USA Gun Shop readers

Quick take: The Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation into whether police in Middletown and Waterbury, Connecticut are dragging out or wrongly denying carry permits. It is an investigation, not a lawsuit and not a finding, and DOJ’s own letters to both cities say it has reached no conclusions.

• What happened: On October 22, 2026, the Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section sent notice letters opening a pattern-or-practice investigation of the Middletown and Waterbury police departments’ permitting systems.
• Why it matters: Connecticut law gives the local police chief eight weeks to approve or deny a temporary state permit to carry, and that permit is also one of the documents that lets you buy a handgun in the state.
• What’s next: DOJ will ask for documents and interviews, then either close the file or publish findings and seek an agreement, with a federal lawsuit as the fallback.
• Who to watch: Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, Second Amendment Section Acting Chief Barry Arrington, and police chiefs Erik M. Costa in Middletown and Fernando C. Spagnolo, Jr. in Waterbury.

Los Angeles County settled with DOJ in August, San Jose got sued in September over its carry fee, and Pennsauken, New Jersey drew a probe on October 14. Now it’s Connecticut’s turn. Along with the release, DOJ posted the notice letters it sent the two cities, and I read both against Connecticut’s permit statutes. The letters say more than the release does.

Table of Contents

What the DOJ Letters to Middletown and Waterbury Say

The Justice Department release, number 26-1252 and dated Thursday, October 22, 2026, says DOJ opened the investigation “to determine whether they unnecessarily delay the issuance of firearm permits to their residents.” The work will focus on the two police departments’ permitting systems.

“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,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon. The first half of that is word for word what she said in September when DOJ sued San Jose over its carry permit fee.

The letters went out the same day by certified mail and email. Middletown’s is addressed to Mayor Gene Nocera and Police Chief Erik M. Costa.

Waterbury’s goes to Mayor Paul K. Pernerewski, Jr. and Chief Fernando C. Spagnolo, Jr. of the Waterbury Police Department.

The legal hook is 34 U.S.C. 12601, part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In the Waterbury letter‘s words, it “prohibits state and local governments from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers” that strips people of constitutional or federal rights.

The scope is narrow and specific. Each department’s handling of permits to carry under section 29-28 of the Connecticut statutes, “including denials and delays in adjudicating such permits.” DOJ says it may talk to city and police staff and to people who have dealt with the department, “including by applying for a permit to carry a firearm.” Each city has five business days from getting the letter to name a contact person.

What neither the release nor the letters contain is a number. No count of applicants, no average wait, no named complainant.

Connecticut’s Eight-Week Clock and the 16-Week Backstop

Connecticut carry permits are a two-step deal. The local permitting authority, which in a town with a police department is the chief of police, issues a temporary state permit. The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection then issues the state permit. The statutes are in chapter 529, and both cities sit at that first step.

Section 29-28a gives the local authority eight weeks after a sufficient application to say yes or no, and if it is no, to give the applicant “a detailed written reason for such denial.” Under section 29-29, if the national criminal history check isn’t back within eight weeks, the department has to tell the applicant about the delay in writing.

There is a backstop for silence. If the chief neither issues nor expressly denies within eight weeks, an applicant who filed on or after April 1, 2024 can present an affidavit to the commissioner at least 16 weeks after applying, and the commissioner “shall accept such affidavit in lieu of a temporary state permit.” During a declared emergency, that wait stretches to 32 weeks.

Money and timing make it worse to get stuck. The state permit costs $140 plus the FBI check fee, and the local authority keeps $70. You can apply only once in any twelve-month window. Under section 29-33, this carry permit is also one of the credentials that let a Connecticut resident buy a handgun, alongside the pistol eligibility certificate and a retail dealer permit. The full process is laid out in our Connecticut gun laws guide.

Delays Versus Denials: The Appeal Board Problem

Read the release closely and the headline word, delay, is only half of it. DOJ says the two 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.”

That appeal goes to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. A denied applicant has 90 days to file, and the board decides the facts “de novo,” meaning it starts fresh. It has to order the permit issued unless it finds the refusal was “for just and proper cause.”

But speed is the weak spot. The board must set a time and place for the hearing within ten days of getting an appeal, and it must meet “not less than once every ninety days.” Nothing in the statute says how far out that hearing date can be. The board also shrank from nine members to eight under a 2025 law, effective July 1, 2025.

DOJ cites Bruen here, and the language is real. In footnote 9, the Supreme Court said it did “not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” That is an open door, not a ruling on any particular wait. The Bruen decision left the line-drawing for later cases.

Why an Investigation Is Not a Finding

DOJ is careful about this, and so should anyone reading the headlines be. Both letters say it plainly: “We have not reached any conclusions about the subject matter of this investigation.”

The letters lay out the road map. If DOJ finds no pattern or practice, it notifies the city and closes the file. If it finds reasonable cause to believe violations are happening, it publishes findings and tries to negotiate a fix, and if that fails, the Attorney General can sue in federal district court.

And the remedy is limited. Section 12601 lets the Attorney General get “appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.” Court orders, in other words. Not checks for people who waited. DOJ’s own letter says that “in most cases, we were able to resolve the violations without contested litigation.”

For applicants in Middletown and Waterbury, nothing changes today. The eight-week clock, the affidavit route and the appeal board all work the way they did on October 21.

The Los Angeles Template and What Happens Next

The closest finished case is Los Angeles County. In its August 13, 2026 settlement release, DOJ said applicants were waiting “an average of over nine months” when it sued the Sheriff’s Department, and that the department “drastically cut those waiting times and is now in compliance with statutory deadlines.” Dhillon credited “new processing software and additional personnel.”

Pennsauken is the closer cousin. DOJ opened that one on October 14 over what it called “egregious and unjust delays in issuing firearm licenses,” and the Pennsauken permit probe was announced the same way, with no lawsuit and no finding. New Jersey and Connecticut both run permits through local police. The Second Amendment Section’s own page says it “investigates alleged patterns or practices of Second Amendment infringement by law enforcement.”

If the files in Middletown and Waterbury look like Los Angeles, the fix DOJ has already accepted once is more staff, better software and deadlines met. If they don’t, the probe closes quietly. Anyone who thinks their own permit is being slow-walked can file a complaint through the Second Amendment Section’s page at justice.gov/crt/second-amendment-section.

Eight weeks is the law. DOJ wants to know what the calendar says.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

---

Related Reading

• Connecticut Gun Laws: Permits, Carry Rules and Restrictions
• DOJ Probes Pennsauken Gun Permit Delays in New Jersey
• DOJ Sues San Jose Over Its Concealed Carry Fee
• How to Get a Concealed Carry Permit: State-by-State Guide
• Glock Sues Connecticut Over Its Convertible Pistol Ban
• Concealed Carry Reciprocity Map: Which States Honor Your Permit