On March 11, News2A interviewed Brenden Sharkey, the lone objecting council member against the groundbreaking 2025 Englishtown measure to rebate the municipal portion of the permit to carry application fee — a measure which kicked off a statewide trend.
We intended to get Councilman Sharkey’s perspective on his dissenting vote as it relates to Second Amendment rights. Then the interview took a left turn into the bizarre.
The councilman’s answers were consistently contradictory, often didn’t align with the facts, and included admissions of being told how to vote (in some cases) by an unknown source.
Background on Rebate Measure
In 2025, Englishtown, New Jersey, became the first municipality in New Jersey (and perhaps the first in the nation) to pass a measure rebating the $150 municipal portion of the state-mandated permit to carry fee application fee to applicants. The measure was unique in that it recognized and reversed the unconstitutional financial burden placed upon individuals by the state simply for exercising their Second Amendment rights. Since then, 18 other municipalities have passed similar measures.
The Englishtown measure passed on June 11, 2025, in a 4-to-1 vote with an objection by only one council member, Brenden Sharkey. This publication interviewed Councilman Sharkey on March 11, wanting to understand how he arrived at his vote on a measure that has since found much success across the state.
The Surprising Interview
(Below is an embedded link to a portion of the audio interview. Following that are excerpts from our 20-minute phone interview, which we requested in advance in writing, including the topic of discussion. We have had to paraphrase at times because Councilman Sharkey’s answers were often unintelligible and/or elusive.)
At the outset, Councilman Sharkey shared that he is a trained accountant with experience in project management and corporate finance. Mr. Sharkey was appointed as Councilman in Englishtown in April of 2025.
News2A asked if Councilman Sharkey had the opportunity to speak to the public at large and measure sentiment regarding the Englishtown permit fee rebate measure. His response was that “less taxes is always good,” and with regard to the right to carry, “…it’s kind of in your amendment.”
When pressed on his perception of public sentiment, he stated, “it’s not like it was advocated here locally,” and suggested that “maybe you should contact the mayor.”
News2A asked if Councilman Sharkey’s concerns about the measure (and his subsequent NO vote) were related to “public safety” or “loss of revenue.” He responded that he would have liked to have had more time to read the resolution, but also acknowledged that, as a matter of standard practice, the council provides resolutions 48 hours prior to a meeting.
News2A then pressed on what his exact concerns were with the resolution. Councilman Sharkey stated, “I was just honestly, I was just trying to understand it, like I was new and this was something that, like, I couldn’t do any, like, research or kind of look at it. I would have just tabled it.”
See a copy of the now-passed Englishtown resolution 2025-101 here. (The resolution is composed of five, simple, one-sentence paragraphs.)
Despite claiming not to understand the measure, Councilman Sharkey says he supported it, stating, “So I’m like behind the effort, you know, overall, and the fee, you know, takes away from the, you know, normal any citizen of paying more like they already pay the state just to own a gun, you know.”
“So you said you’re behind the resolution, but you voted no?” News2A queried.
Councilman Sharkey affirmed: “I thought it was a little bit, it was a lot to introduce in a little time. And you know, for me, I like to be able to get provided the actual like, all right, if we’re doing this, then how are we going to do it?”
The councilman also stated, “at that time we had no [business administrator]… we had a consulting firm that there contract was like ending. So there was just a lot of stuff going on,” adding later, “If we’re going to do this, do we have the proper setup to be able to do it, cause our police are, you know sometimes, act as you know our office, our office staff…. You gotta make sure that this person knows what to do in this case, you know?” News2A pointed out that the rebate mechanism was spelled out in the resolution.
“OK, so it wasn’t a revenue concern for you, it was a, basically an administrative concern?” asked News2A.
Councilman Sharkey insisted he did not have enough time, stating, “I just I think I wanted a little bit more time to understand the process, you know, as I was, you know, new at that time, just kind of learning everything like how the council works. Because again, you know, I didn’t plan to become a councilman or anything like that.” Here, Councilman Sharkey gave a back story about how he came to be appointed to the newly-formed council.
News2A continued the original line of questioning, returning to the constitutional framework, asking, “But how did you weigh your vote on the lack of clarity against the fee, um, for a constitutional right. Like, where did you, how did you come to a conclusion that it was appropriate to have a fee on what is essentially a constitutional right, and how did that factor into your vote?”
Councilman Sharkey did not seem to understand the question, so News2A rephrased, “This was a fee on your ability to exercise your Second Amendment right. So like, how did you arrive at your vote decision, um, when you had to weigh the administrative side of it with the other side of it?”
Councilman Sharkey responded, “I guess. Yeah. To your point, that wasn’t completely brought up at that time. And that’s where, like, it would have been nice to kind of weigh on it for, you know, to bring up that and think about that, what you said.”
News2A asked for clarification as to whether the Councilman meant it was not written into the measure or was not part of the discussion at the meeting. Councilman Sharkey responded, “It was almost a year ago, I don’t remember exactly word for word how it was brought up.” (News2A reviewed publicly available video from the meeting, which confirms that the constitutional element was indeed discussed.)
Councilman Sharkey’s overall answer was unclear, but he eventually said, “I’m for it, I guess, is what I’m saying, what he’s trying to do.”
News2A clarified, “You’re in support of the measure today? If there were a vote today, you would vote, you would vote yes to pass it?” “Yeah!” responded Sharkey.
“But did you have the opportunity to abstain?” continued News2A, to which Councilman Sharkey responded, “Yeah, I guess you can abstain. But then, you know, I was told like, oh, you, you can’t, kinda, you shouldn’t abstain, or something like that.”
With piqued interest, News2A asked, “Who told you that you shouldn’t abstain?” and the councilman stated, “I don’t remember who. And they weren’t saying it on that particular one, but they’re like, oh, well, you’re there, you’re in that seat to vote. Like, people are going to get mad if you abstain on votes, like you need to go yes or no. I don’t remember exactly who, but yeah, that’s what I was told.” At this late point in the interview, perhaps feeling uncomfortable with his answers, Councilman Sharkey told us, “This is kind of off the record, I just wanted to kind of talk to you,” (which we never agreed to as the interview would be pointless).
When asked how often he goes shooting, the Councilman responded that he does not have a gun, but has shot before, and goes to the gun club on occasion.
When asked about a drug-related offense seemingly charged under his name, Councilman Sharkey demurred and then said, “No Comment on that,” and subsequently hung up. He acknowledged the charge in a later email exchange, asserting it was dismissed, but did not comment further.
Summary
Councilman Sharkey’s responses during this interview were concerning in their own right — contradictory, not aligned with factual evidence, and sometimes evasive. It’s also possible his dissenting vote was politically motivated. According to town council records, Councilman Sharkey was censured on two different occasions for misconduct and removed from his role in a finance committee based upon the belief by council members that “he is seeking political elevation, collaborating with outsiders and potentially engaging in actions that could expose the town to legal risk…”
The councilman’s answers are also representative of the responses from MANY council members around the state when asked to consider the same rebate measure for their towns. Constitutional rights often take a back seat to so-called administrative concerns and “revenue” that the town believes is theirs to hold, spend, and dispense. The way forward for gun owners is showing up, strongly and persistently voicing concerns, and educating appointed and elected officials about our collective rights.
