We find, however, that it is a clear violation of the home-rule amendment for the General Assembly to attempt to limit and preempt all authroity of a municipality regarding the regulation of concealed handguns within its jurisdiction

The statute precisely delineates those limited public locations prohibiting concealed weapons. Those places not expressly incorporated into the list are not subject to the statute. Shortly after the bill's enactment, an amendment was proposed to modify the language expressly expanding the list of covered areas to include parks and recreation areas. The legislature did not adopt this amendment. The failure to adopt an amendment containing a parks provision constitutes compelling indicia that the exclusion of parks or recreation facilities was not an oversight. It was a conscious decision evincing legislative intent to exclude park property from the statute. Now the majority wishes to exercise legislative power from the bench by substituting its judgment for that of our elected representatives. Such an action constitutes an unwarranted judicial intervention.

Given the legislative history, the majority's actions create a conflict between the statute's provisions undermining both legislative intent and the actual provisions of R.C. 2923.126(A). It will enable every city, town, village, township or county within the state to render the statute void by merely enacting a farther-reaching local ordinance. Further, in declaring that R.C. 2923.126 is not a general law, the majority opens Pandora's Box. If R.C. 2923.126 is not a general law then dozens if not hundreds of other state statutes are also not general laws, and local governments can change them at will. Thus, the majority's action will serve only to promote uncertainty in the law.