I don't accept notions of "natural (read: absolute) rights"; all rights are man-made attempts to develop (read: construct) civilizations on the basis of our historically developed values and social systems that work both for human survival and growth.
Locke would not disagree with you. His term "natural" was not intended to contrast with "man-made", but with "divine". The verbiage is a matter of historical context, not dictionary definitions. i.e., In Locke's view: "Rights" are "natural" given a common, humane recognition of similarity, and a similarity of our desires (a similarity deep enough to call mutual) -- thus cooperation is preferable to combat. Locke used the term "social contract" back in 1689 -- by "natural right" he did not mean anti-historical, "absolute" right. He meant the opposite: agreements set on a natural balance.
I was studying the works of John Locke, the Free Market system, and the inner mechanics that enables the economy we have today. There are many examples like habeas corpus that are mentioned in the news, and this certainly extends to constitutional rights ie gun laws (to be current). What are your thoughts?
I find your "question" confusing --what is it exactly? You throw out a name, some vague terms, some legal statutes, and suggest that there may be a connection. Do you think there is a connection? What you have provided thus far cannot elicit a rational answer?
PS: habeas corpus has nothing to do with the free market or gun control. It has to do with trial law.