Depends on which dictionary you look up "law" in. Sometimes it is defined as "a body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community."
Anyway, I like your definition, so I'm willing to go along with it.
If you take your car back by force from the police agency which confiscated it without due process you will have committed a crime, and go to jail.
You have committed a crime as defined by some unjust law, but you haven't really committed a crime. Or, using your distinction between rights and law above, you have broken a law but haven't violated anyone's rights. You may be guilty in the eyes of a corrupt government, but you are innocent in the eyes of God.
Is there a such thing as a God-given right to own property?
Of course there is. It is implied in the right to life. How could you live by right if you didn't rightfully own your body, and the wealth you create? Anyone could come and rightfully take possession of your teeth or your tongue or your stomach--even your whole body. Whenever you manage to obtain some food, anyone could come and rightfully take it away from you!
"First possession" is a thoroughly discredited and naive concept. All property today has been acquired through war. The rights of the precedent owners (Indians, English, Mexicans etc) have been replaced by the rights of the conquerers (American citizens).
The area of the United States is so vast that it could hardly have been covered by Indian landowners in its entirety. In fact, the Indians were nomadic people who simply didn't have the concept of property. Texas seceded from Mexico in a war of independence, fought against a tyrannical power which did not respect individual rights, and later joined the United States voluntarily.
It is fashionable in certain circles to think of the acquisition of American land as a brutal and unjust conquest that evicted civilized landowners like you and me from their property. Need I say which political agenda these "circles" subscribe to? Don't be fooled by them. You don't "own" your land because you inherited it from a thief; you own it because you inherited (or bought) it from someone who acquired it as a well-earned result of his toil and his spirit of enterprise.
It is fashionable in certain circles to think of the acquisition of American land as a brutal and unjust conquest that evicted civilized landowners like you and me from their property. Need I say which political agenda these "circles" subscribe to? Don't be fooled by them. You don't "own" your land because you inherited it from a thief; you own it because you inherited (or bought) it from someone who acquired it as a well-earned result of his toil and his spirit of enterprise.
You presume that I believe all wars are unjust. I do not.
I believe the civilization of America by force was a just enterprise in general.
I believe the Revolutionary war was just.
My ancestors were pioneers and tamed wild lands and fought with Indians. Their cause was just.
They also fought tyrannical powers in Washington who sought to force them to fight in the Civil War. [Missouri was to remain neutral. They fought against Lincoln in the Missouri Brigades.] Their cause was just.
They have fought in every major war since.
That is why it is important that we never enter a conflict unless it is just. That is why it is important that when we do enter a conflict we plan to win completely and conquer the enemy, and completely deprive him of the opportunity to regain strength and strike back.
That is why it was a mistake to engage Saddam Hussein without conquering him in 1991.
"When you strike a king kill him".
The terrorists must learn this lesson, be they Al Queda or Hamas.