Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed in NJ Taser Case

After New Jersey's concession in Lambert, and then answer in NJ2AS/Mark Cheeseman's case, we drafted and filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which essentially asks the Court to enter judgment in our favor because we are entitled to it. Here is a snippet:

Between requesting extensions and answering the Complaint on November 10, 2016, Defendant Christopher Porrino, in a case styled State of New Jersey v. Kevin Lambert, Docket No. A-1996-15T5 (attached), conceded that the State of New Jersey’s “… stun-gun statute violates the Second Amendment…” Id. at 10. Further, the Attorney General’s concluded that “For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should rule that defendant’s conviction for possession of a stun-gun violates the Second Amendment…” Id. at 16. This concession came three days before the Defendants in the instant case filed their Answer; essentially denying that the stun gun ban violates the Second Amendment.

It is a very short brief that is available here.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
No tags yet.
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square



​​​​​This website has been prepared by Stamboulieh Law​, PLLC for informational purposes only. The information contained herein is not legal advice, and recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should not rely on the information contained herein without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. Viewing this site or communicating with a Stamboulieh Law, PLLC attorney via e-mail, through this site or otherwise, does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between Stamboulieh Law, PLLC and any person or entity. Confidential information should not be sent to the firm without the prior approval of the firm, and the content of any correspondence sent via the Internet will not be considered or maintained as confidential unless such approval is obtained.​


​​​​© 2019 by Stamboulieh Law, PLLC.