> Maybe that's a little farfetched. But isn't a law a law?

No. In the United States, we actually have a law that gives juries power *over* the law. If, for example, you are tried for breaking what a jury believes is an unjust law, the jury can find you innocent even if they believe you broke said law. For example, if you kill someone who breaks into your home and threatens the lives of you and your family, but you are tried by a law that deems your actions too severe under the circumstances, but a jury finds that you were, in fact, justified in your actions, the jury can overturn the law in that instance. Furthermore, a mistrial can be declared if the judge does not inform the jury of that right prior to their deliberations. Granted, this example doesn't have much to do with the situation you describe, but it serves to indicate that the letter of the law is not the end-all be-all determination of what's allowable and what isn't.

The law in this country, while I'm not an anarchist, is bloated to the point of folly. Anybody who cares enough to do so can figure out *something* to nail you on if they chose to. Indication #2.

All laws are not equal. "Or are there some that aren't as important?" Of course. Murder is punishable by life in prison or, in some cases, by death. Petty theft is not. Speeding on the highway isn't even technically breaking the law at all.

Finally, there are individual views people have which take precedence over the law, and that's what is ethical or moral. The problem, of course, is that different people have different views about what is moral and what isn't. For that reason, it is my belief that laws only have a right to exist to prevent harm to other people. If you think it is your moral obligation to cut off all the arms of your neighbors, I'm sorry, but that is not a moral view that this country has chosen to tolerate in its melting pot of personal beliefs, and therefore I believe the law has every right to punish you if you did that.

However, I do not believe the law has any right to make me wear a seat belt when I'm driving. Laws have no business putting their noses into a personal decision on my part that can affect only me. Fortunately this ridiculous seat belt law coincides with my personal belief on what is sensible to do anyway, so I comply with that particular law, as I would anyway, and differ with it only on principle. (This is not to be confused with laws requiring minors to wear seat belts, and for parents to be responsible for their children wearing seat belts -- introducing minors into the discussion opens a whole new can of worms, but, in a nutshell, that's a law I quite agree with.)

The fireworks laws I personally find to be abhorrent infringements on our personal freedoms. I don't hold the moral, ethical, or common sense belief that I must abstain from fireworks. While I don't tend to seek out and shoot off fireworks, even on the traditional holidays that call for them, there have been times when I have done so, and there will be times in the future where I will merrily do so again, law be damned.

But, to get back to addressing your question, I think it's important for me to observe your approach to the question. Your concern seems not to be with shooting fireworks but with the principle of condoning breaking the law, because, if one is broken, where does it end?

The only way I can figure this being an issue is if you don't acknowledge an alternate higher code of conduct. If the law is all -- or the last thing -- you hold yourself accountable to, then you're right: break one rule in the final say on right and wrong, and what's to stop you from breaking the others?

I don't have that problem, because I don't attribute the law with such power. The final say, for me, isn't the law but the code of conduct demanded by God in the Bible. (Fortunately for my sanity, the Bible's moral code includes, after its own mandates on what you should do and not do, obeying the laws of the land -- so there is rarely an outright conflict.) Some don't subscribe to biblical moral code but some other, and hold that above the law, too. It is right that the law not attempt to be anything but secondary to personal religious, moral, and ethical beliefs. I'm not saying I condone anyone making up any moral code they want to and considering that above the law -- I would reject any moral code that violates the "hurt others" principle mentioned earlier. It is wrong that the law try to extend itself beyond that fundamental assurance. I vehemently reject any law, for example, that attempts to legislate my *own* safety and wellbeing, as opposed to the safety and wellbeing of others.

And then there's something I have to comment on your example, as well. To illustrate your doubts, you provide a dialogue between a mother and son. Obeying parental instruction, when we are minors, is another code of conduct to which, within the same limitation as above, we are held accountable. "But you let me do the fireworks" is not a valid argument a child can make to his parent. If a parent says, "No dope smoking," it's no dope smoking, and whether or not (1) the parent has condoned breaking other laws or (2) dope smoking is even illegal in the first place, is irrelevant. Mom said no. End of story. "Where does it end?" In this case, it's when Mom says no.

The basic point here is that the law isn't (usually) the only code of conduct to which we are held accountable. If it is, then by all means, obey it to the letter, or there is no good reason not to break more when you break one. When it's not so bad to break a law is when you're holding yourself accountable to some other (non-arbitrarily chosen) code of conduct.