Two hours of work, one sentence (albeit with a nice footnote).
Unfortunately, the thought that follows from the sentence is a fundamental principle of law that has nevertheless proved nearly impossible for me to find in a case. It is, briefly, this:
1. If a person has a Constitutional Right, the government may not infringe it with an absolute ban.
2. At some point, state restrictions on the exercise of the right become a ban when their practical effect is a total restriction or when they pose an undue burden on the right without a correspondingly strong, permissible state interest.
Point #2 basically is that you can't get around your inability to ban something by restricting away access to the thing incrementally. I can't find a case on point for this, of course. Any case, since I'm pretty good at using the table of authorities.
Any of my legal readers have a case on point?
At any rate, I am going to write the sentence and come back to the footnote later. There's no sense letting a little writer's block stop me cold.