Final answer:
The statement presents a fallacy by incorrectly assuming that the right to carry a concealed weapon applies to all contexts, including schools. It ignores legal nuances and the fact that Second Amendment rights are not absolute and are subject to regulations, as established in legal cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and United States v. Miller.
Step-by-step explanation:
The fallacy presented in the statement, "The new law says everybody who takes a firearms course can carry a concealed weapon, so I don't see why I can't take my gun to school," is the mistaken assumption that the ability to carry a concealed weapon under law thereby applies universally to all situations, including ones in which it might be restricted or prohibited, such as in schools. This overlooks specific laws, regulations, and nuances regarding where concealed weapons may be legally carried. It can also be an example of a slippery slope fallacy if it suggests that allowing concealed carry in one context inevitably leads to allowing it in all contexts without further debate or consideration of differences between those contexts. This topic pertains to legal understandings of the Second Amendment and the extent of gun rights it protects.
Legal precedents such as District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago illustrate that while the Second Amendment does protect individual gun rights to some extent, those rights are not considered absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulations. Some of these regulations might include restrictions on where firearms may be carried. Additionally, the case of United States v. Miller supported the government's ability to limit access to firearms that do not have a direct relationship to the functioning of a well-regulated militia.