@TeeDee None are wntirely free from “the code of law.” I’ll center the answer on the main topic: self defense and/or defense of family. That’s one of the inherent rights. It’s a basic human right and indeed, one of the very reasons government and law exist at all. To try to restrict that right is abhorrently evenly inns of itself. That said, the code of law, and a tenet of civilization, is to prevent it being used as an excuse for murder. It’s perfectly reasonable to prescribe and enforce codes specifying that “deadly force” isn’t necessary appropriate response to verbal insults (basically qualifying what is and is not legitimate self defense) Until the last decade and a half deadly force here was only seen justifiable when left with no other alternative (if you could avoid being harmed by simply retreating, you were expected to do so) Castle Doctrine was the exception: once you retreated to your home (or if the incident began there) you had no duty to flee your own home. This doctrine also appield to your vehicle or motel room in most states. More recently more and more states have passed the “stand your ground” laws removing the duty to retreat.
Back to the point of you question as to what rights are inherent: as stated above, the right to self defense, the right to use your own property as you see fit as long as it doesn’t cause harm to others (the legal term is the right to “quiet enjoyment”)
The right of free speech. Again, even this has some legitimate restrictions: for example shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded public area for no reason wouldn’t be true “speech” in that context. Nor would lying under oath at a public function.
tonbe honest the list is far too long to be complete. That’s why there was serious debate about the original Bill of Rights. On the one the one hand the framers thought that listing them was uneccessary and also because future generationsmight think them THE existive list.
on the other hand they realized that some rights were so important they needed to be innumerated.
Back to the point of you question as to what rights are inherent: as stated above, the right to self defense, the right to use your own property as you see fit as long as it doesn’t cause harm to others (the legal term is the right to “quiet enjoyment”)
The right of free speech. Again, even this has some legitimate restrictions: for example shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded public area for no reason wouldn’t be true “speech” in that context. Nor would lying under oath at a public function.
tonbe honest the list is far too long to be complete. That’s why there was serious debate about the original Bill of Rights. On the one the one hand the framers thought that listing them was uneccessary and also because future generationsmight think them THE existive list.
on the other hand they realized that some rights were so important they needed to be innumerated.
) and castle law I have no idea anymore , again - doesn't mean I agree with it but currently its the laws I have to follow in this country. 
