”). But because the District of Columbia’s laws prevented persons from possessing firearms even for self-defense in the home, they were unconstitutional under any form of means-end scrutiny applicable to assess the validity of limitations on constitutional rights. Id. at 2817-18 (“Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights ... [the statutes] would fail constitutional muster.” (citation and footnote omitted)). As we read Heller, it suggests a two-pronged approach to Second Amendment challenges. First, we ask whether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee. Cf. United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218, 233 (3d Cir.2008), aff'd — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (<HOLDING>). If it does not, our inquiry is complete. If
holding that protected speech cannot serve as the basis for a violation of city ordinances at issue recognizing criticisms of public officials is at core of speech protected by first amendment holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court recognizing the preliminary issue in a first amendment challenge is whether the speech at issue is protected or unprotected holding that when protected speech is inextricable from unprotected speech the court will treat the entire message as protected