One of the goals of law is certainty. As anyone who studies our awful carry laws or frequents this site knows the "public gathering" restriction is incredibly vague. There is a whole line of cases surronding this concept, lawyers like to call it "legality". The hallmark of these cases are where the legislature have written laws that are unclear. Essentialy if a law is not clear enough to tell a citizen what they are allowed and not allowed to do then it is unconstitutional. (Void-for-vagueness) This is the opposite side of the old saying "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." You can't resonably expect someone to know the law when its not even clear what the law means. I would commit to anyone interested the cases of Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville and Keeler v. Superior Ct. This isn't a 2nd Amendment based attack, but it doesn't have to be either. This is more along the lines of a due process attack. To be successful I think we'd have to go federal court, but... it might work out. And the unofficial opinions of the AG don't count for this type of analysis (meaning they couldn't be used as evidence of clarity in the law). See Hopkins v. State. Thoughts, feelings, etc. If you all want reporter numbers for these cases, that might take a while for me to find, but I can get them. And no, none of these cases are from a Georgia court and none are from the 11th Circuit. However, Papachristou is a Supreme Court case. But Papachristou is where I got the majority of this idea and I'm sure there are other cases out there that would be more persuasive for an 11th circuit court that stand for the argument I'm presenting.