Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
likely to do so than the Act. By contrast, the Act allows firearm counseling to continue, so it is not directly regulating medical conduct or declaring a certain form of treatment bad medicine. At the same time, the Act directly bans asking irrelevant questioning about firearms — even, indeed especially, those questions having nothing to do with medical conduct. The Act thus directly targets questioning and only incidentally advances whatever medical interests might be served by a law eliminating irrelevant questions about firearms from the doctor’s office. The burden on speech is direct. The benefit to medical care is, at best, incidental and indirect. The Supreme Court has explicitly recognized that States cannot advance their interests in this way. See Sorrell, 131 S.Ct. at 2670 . In an attempt to salvage its claim that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the first amendment prohibits laws where the state seeks to achieve its policy objectives through the indirect means of restraining certain speech by certain speakers
B. holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity
C. recognizing derivative standing if the bankruptcy court determines that certain conditions exist and certain prerequisites are met
D. holding that prosecutor free to comment on defendants failure to call certain witnesses or present certain testimony
E. holding that an ordinance granting greater first amendment rights to speakers who support the human services objectives of the city was impermissibly contentbased
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.