"PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. http://floridajail4judges.org/docume...or.person.html
Couple of comments based on my own first hand research. Be careful with the word "person", as used in the statutes and codes. It never means what you think it means in everyday language. Go read the definitions sections in the original public law or statute. It is a legal fiction business entity egaging in interstate commerce, and you have agreed through a contract in most cases that you agree to waive rights and step in to that persona for a privilege. Person was sometimes defined differently in public law than the US codes to hide the fact it was defined in law as for a "resident alien" (a 14th Amendment citizen), and "individual" (public officer with income effectively connected to a trade or business and subject to the FIT). When "person" is defined as includes 5 different legal business entities, of which 1 of the 5 definitions is a "natural person", then that means the "natural person" is also a legal fiction business entity, and not a man/woman. That would be like defining a fruit as an apple, pear, peach, orange and a bottle. That would not pass the rules of statutory construction. In this case "natural person" would most likely be an "individual" which is defined above.

An example, when studying "firearms" laws, you come to realize that "person" inlcludes the legal fiction business entities like manufacturers, dealers, distributors, FFL's etc. and not any man or woman who has a right to keep and bear arms. In the intent of the legislation, it is clear it is not the intent to regulate the use for lawful purposes by man. Only business entities engaged in interstate commerce, and that definition only includes commerce between federal territories and other federal territories, and not between the 50 states of the union. So be cognizant and read definitions first, and sometimes they hide them where you least expect.

As for "human being", my suggestion is to stay away from that definition. Why you ask? Are you familiar with the man or other animals statutes, like Title 21 Food and Drugs Act? I also found one in my state law. Al Adask has done some good work on that and has first hand experience in court with it. A human being is a vertabrate animal, so it is just another animal. This is from the concept of evolution from apes etc. So if you believe in the Holy Bible, you may want to do some research before ever agreeing to be a "human being" and just go with what the Creator made you. http://adask.wordpress.com/category/...other-animals/

Grace and Peace