It's only been a week since the Department of Justice announced it was investigating the issuance of concealed carry permits in Middletown and Waterbury, Connecticut, but there's already evidence emerging that at least one of the towns has a serious problem.
Waterbury is responsible for more firearm permit denial hearings than any other locality in the state, and it's not really even close. According to data from the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (BFPE) Waterbury residents have nearly 80 hearings on gun permit denials scheduled between now and June 2027. CT Insider reports that's about four times as many as Bridgeport and East Hartford, which each have about 16 denial appeals in the pipeline.
Attorney Diane Whitney, chair of Connecticut's firearm board, said Waterbury frequently is on the agenda for hearings on gun permit denials.
"We see Waterbury at every meeting," Whitney said. "I'm not sure how to interpret that but we do get a lot of cases from Waterbury."
Waterbury is very careful in the way it examines and presents cases, she added. "I wouldn't say Waterbury's denials are frivolous," Whitney said. "They may be a little conservative, but that's understandable."
In a "shall-issue" licensing system, localities shouldn't be more conservative or liberal than others. If objective criteria is being used, then someone either meets the requirements for a license or they don't.
Connecticut, though, expressly allows local licensing authorities to deny pistol permit applications based on a determination that an applicant is not a “suitable person,” even if the applicant has no disqualifying criminal conviction or other statutory prohibition. That's exactly the kind of subjective determinations the Supreme Court said wasn't allowed in Bruen, and based on the number of appeals coming from Waterbury, it appears that local police believe there are a lot of unsuitable residents trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
As I reported when covering the DOJ's announcement last week, during the September meeting of the Office of Government Accountability's Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, the board overturned the denials of two applications from Waterbury residents (while upholding the denial of a third). Those were the only successful appeals of the 16 cases heard by the board last month, and while that's not proof of any wrongdoing on the part of the department it's another intriguing data point.
Attorney Ralph Sherman, who frequently represents clients coming before the board for denial hearings, said both Middletown and Waterbury can have extensive delays in issuing gun permits, which he called an issue related to amount of resources each police department devotes to dealing with permits. He said he sees delays in permit approvals of more than four months in various municipalities even though statutes say it only should take eight weeks.
"There are some very legitimate concerns," Sherman said. "I don't think the delays are intentional," he said of Waterbury. "But I do think the denials need to be looked at."
It doesn't matter if the delays are the result of licensing officers shoving applications in a drawer and forgetting about them or staffing issues. If state statute requires permits to be processed within eight weeks, the towns need to allocate the resources necessary to meet that deadline.
Connecticut's licensing system is truly bizarre, and imposes needless delays on applicants. The permits issued by Waterbury, Middletown, and every other locality are actually temporary permits. Once someone's been approved and has received that piece of paper, they then have to apply to the state police for a regular permit.
What legitimate public safety purpose is served by requiring two separate layers of government approval, particularly when one of those layers can delay applicants for months?
It's not as though Connecticut is relying solely on local officials to determine whether someone is legally eligible to carry a firearm. The State Police conduct their own review before issuing a five-year permit, and nonresidents can apply directly to the state without ever having to obtain a temporary permit from a local licensing authority.
If that process is good enough for someone who lives in Massachusetts or New York, why isn't it good enough for someone who lives in Waterbury?
Connecticut lawmakers have at least acknowledged that local officials can drag their feet. Under a law that took effect in 2024, applicants who haven't received an approval or denial after 16 weeks can submit an affidavit to the State Police and proceed with their application without a temporary permit. That's supposed to be a safeguard against unreasonable delays, but it still forces residents to twiddle their thumbs for up to four months before they can bypass an official who hasn't done the job required by law.
We still don't know whether Waterbury's high number of permit appeals is because of an overly aggressive interpretation of the state's suitability standard, legitimate concerns about individual applicants, or some combination of the two. That's precisely why the DOJ investigation is warranted, and I can't wait to see what they discover.
Even if the DOJ's Civil Rights Division concludes that Waterbury and Middletown have done nothing wrong, though, there's a larger problem that Connecticut lawmakers should address. A constitutional right shouldn't depend on which town you live in, how generously your police department is staffed, or whether a local official thinks you're suitable to exercise it.
I doubt the Democrat majority in the Connecticut legislature will lift a finger to fix this glaring problem, at least not without the DOJ forcing its hand. I know these investigations take time, but the sooner the DOJ can wrap it up, the sooner those residents in towns like Waterbury and Middletown might actually be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights as the Constitution guarantees.
