US Supreme Court to our SJC: If you want to uphold ban on stun guns, you'll have to come up with better reasons

You left out a lot of detail in this 8-0 ruling:

The defendant wasn't arrested for shoplifting. She was a suspect which consented to a search to clear herself and when the police searched her the stun gun was discovered.

The woman was homeless and a victim of domestic violence with a restraining order against her ex-husband which had previously approached and threatened to kill her in public.

A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people
safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either
unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect
Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To
make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy
its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of
a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal
weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme
Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest
of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now
sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences
for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her
conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for selfdefense.
See Pet. for Cert. 14.
If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect
Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the
mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned
about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

The SJC went through some serious gymnastics to stick it to this woman and the Supreme Court was none too pleased about a victim being victimized again by the system which is supposed to protect her.

The lower court’s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand.
The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave
threat to the fundamental right of self-defense. The Supreme
Judicial Court suggested that Caetano could have
simply gotten a firearm to defend herself. 470 Mass., at
783, 26 N. E. 3d, at 695. But the right to bear other weapons
is “no answer” to a ban on the possession of protected
arms. Heller, 554 U. S., at 629. Moreover, a weapon is an
effective means of self-defense only if one is prepared to
use it, and it is presumptuous to tell Caetano she should
have been ready to shoot the father of her two young
children if she wanted to protect herself. Courts should
not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more
force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding.6
Countless people may have reservations about using
deadly force, whether for moral, religious, or emotional
reasons—or simply out of fear of killing the wrong person.
See Brief for Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment
as Amicus Curiae 4–5. “Self-defense,” however, “is a
basic right.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767. I am not prepared
to say that a State may force an individual to choose
between exercising that right and following her conscience,
at least where both can be accommodated by a
weapon already in widespread use across the Nation.

Pretty damning

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves, they would be outraged that the stun guns they loved and cherished are being outlawed. Whats next, the marijuana so many at the time grew made illegal?

Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Newton, Arlington, etc.?

And where can I buy pepper spray? The strange MA law change means still no one will ship it into MA, even though it's now legal to carry here without a permit, but I don't see any gun stores in the area.

It's like someone really doesn't want people to have pepper spray here, even after lifting the firearms ID requirement, supposedly to make it easier for women to be able to carry pepper spray.

If this is about not wanting muggers to have pepper spray, I have bad news for you: the muggers already have knives and often guns.

I like the author's (david @ bluemassgroup) very fair explanation. I find it to be really telling that this went 6 to 0 even without Justices Thomas, Alito, & Scalia, the most conservative ones, although I admit I don't have any idea what statement Thomas and Alito were making by not signing onto the main opinion. I can't help but see it as being a unanimous reproach of Massachusetts' ultra liberalism. And another thing: knowing the current members of the court show a lot of flexibility in their mindsets, they can hardly be counted upon to rule according to preconceived notions of their liberal/conservative slants, and so why is there always lately such a drag down fight to appoint somebody who will probably not turn out to rule how you wanted him to anyway ?