I think it's the other way around, though. The mentality about the law that you describe, which is very real, is overdetermined. For one, it's a symptom of a belief that the law was created by people who might be wiser than you are, but ultimately have your best interests in mind (the term "founding fathers" is revealing). It's easier to buy into that belief if you have something in common with those people, like your whiteness.
For another, it's a symptom of a belief that The Law is, somehow, natural, and not something humans built to protect and acquire more power. It seems to have fallen off a bit, but for a while, conservatives were talking about the Constitution and the Bible the same way. If I just have to believe in the Constitution and the Bible to be saved, or to be protected from (for example) imprisonment, then why would I be obliged to respect anyone who refuses to make that simple choice?
It also symptomatizes a commitment to "lawbreaker" and "law-abider" as identities that aren't contingent on actions, which explains why, as Amy said, a lot of these people actually break the law all the time. I would take it even further than what Amy said: to them, going 100 mph on a 65 mph freeway is okay, whereas rolling through a stop sign on a bike is not, because I believe in the law (which I can say because I know my own faith / mind / intent), but they are lawbreakers (which I judge based on their actions, not their intent). It's a little like people saying "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns": one of the axioms behind that is, "Because I am a Good Guy(tm), it's impossible for me to do anything bad with a gun." And there's an obvious analogy between that binary, and other binaries that affect whether you get to be treated as a full person or not and are assumed to be based on innate qualities. (I think @Quidam's comment below is making a similar point.)
Those three things might seem to be incompatible with each other to some extent, and they are, but if anything, that only makes them stronger.
I'm also thinking about the time I was trying to explain the Kayla Moore story to some bro in my EMT class a few years ago, starting from "police busted into her house to do a wellness check and killed her", and he interrupted with "was she doing something stupid?" I think "doing something stupid" there and "breaking the law" here have similar functions. As you said, to the people we're talking about, it means "I don't have to watch out for that, or anticipate what to do in that case." My classmate might have meant, "well, if she was doing 'something stupid', all bets are off and I don't need to think about what happened next", or he might have meant "if she was doing 'something stupid', she deserved to be executed for it." But actually, I don't think those statements are all that different, at least functionally. The consequence of both of those meanings is, "She was in a class of people I don't need to care about or extend protection to; or expect others to care about and protect." Drivers don't tend to apply the "lawbreaker" thing to young children, right? People do drive recklessly and run over five-year-olds, but rarely do you hear someone defend it with "that five-year-old should have obeyed the law." Most people would at least say that all children deserve protection (even if they don't act like it). So I really think that "they're a lawbreaker, so I don't need to plan for that" is a statement about who does and doesn't deserve protection, about who I do and don't have obligations to (whether that's paying attention when driving, or thinking before I fire my gun when working as a cop), even if it seems like a more basic logical error.
