Your post is very thought provoking and I just cannot get it off of my mind. Yesterday I kept mulling it over. I certainly cannot speak for all "law abiding gun owners", but my answer to your question is yes, that is how I personally define law abiding. An otherwise good citizen who violates an insane law is still law abiding in my view. As an example I do not put the long haul truck driver who crosses multiple state lines, but chooses to be armed for self defense in the same category as a gangbanger who illegally carries a gun for nefarious purposes. Or the otherwise law abiding person who walks into a post office to mail a package with a j frame in his pocket. Or the person in an emergency response business who responds to a flooded building at 3 AM that happens to be on a college campus and chooses not to leave his means of protection several blocks away locked in his truck in a bad neighborhood. All of these people are breaking the law, but for my part I will not label them as criminals. Sometimes concealed is concealed and you pays your money and you takes your chances. I personally believe that any law that restricts an otherwise law abiding person's right to defend themselves is a bad law. People often break bad laws and are not viewed as non-law abiding, at least by me and I think some others. Of course if you get caught you will get punished, that is the risk. On the other hand if you truly find yourself in a situation where you really have to defend your life, or the lives of your family, then one might decide that it is worth that risk.
Additionally I have heard Masad Ayoob talk about the doctrine of competing harms and especially how it could have related to the Bernard Goetz case. Bernard Goetz, the so called "Subway Vigilante" had been previously assaulted and brutalized, he attempted to get a permit to carry, but was denied. Having already been assaulted, knowing that it could happen again and knowing the the city of New York could not protect him he made a rational decision and decided to be responsible for his own protection. He armed himself. When he was subsequently assaulted he protected himself. I consider Mr. Goetz a law abiding citizen, not a criminal. Had he obeyed the law he could have been maimed, crippled or dead. He made the decision to exercise his right to self defense. I applaud that decision.
Personally I am a big chicken and I never carry anywhere that it is prohibited by law. I have weighed the risk and I take my chances. That said I do not view the individual who chooses otherwise as not law abiding. The exception would be the individual who carries for bad purposes and with bad intent, meaning a criminal.