Id. (citations and quotations omitted). If the statute is not limited to unprotected categories of speech or expressive conduct, we turn to the core overbreadth inquiry: Does the statute prohibit a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech? This inquiry looks to the conduct that is criminalized by the statute—some of which is unprotected speech or conduct and some of which is speech and expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment—and asks whether the protected speech and expressive conduct make up a substantial proportion of the behavior the statute prohibits compared with conduct and speech that are unprotected and may be legitimately criminalized. A statute is not substantially overbroad merely because one can conceive of some impermissible applications. Id. at 847-48 (citations and quotations omitted). If the statute prohibits a substantial amount of protected expressive conduct, we consider whether applying a narrowing construction or severing problematic language from the statute would remedy the constitutional defect. Id. at 848. If the statute is substantially overbroad and cannot be saved by a narrowing construction or severance, “the remaining option is to invalidate the statute.” Id. (quotation omitted). “Because the overbreadth doctrine has the potential to void an entire statute, it should be applied only as a last resort and only if the degree of overbreadth is substantial and the statute is not subject to a limiting construction.” Dunham, 708 N.W.2d at 565 (quotation omitted). With these principles in mind, we turn to the language of Minn. Stat. § 617.261. 1. Minn. Stat. § 617.261 has a broad sweep. Minn. Stat. § 617.261 provides: 7