Continued From Previous Topic gunstar1: The federal law is a little flaky, in that it requires the state to make sure the person qualifies (under state law) to receive the license. GA law grants the "license" to people who have a reciprocal license. One could argue that GA has made sure the person is eligible to receive GA's "license" by its grant of the "license" only to people qualified under the reciprocal state's law. I agree with you that some rights are present at birth, but others clearly are not. For example, if you buy a house when you are 25 years old, you purchase rights (in real estate) that you did not have when you were born. I also agree that a license may grant a privilege, but I also would suggest that a privilege is a kind of right (that is, privileges are subsets of rights). From that perspective, I think it is correct to say that a license can grant a right or a privilege. Here is an example. If a city builds a park, it generally is available for use by all. The retains title to the park, but it grants a license to all to use it. Is using the park a privilege? I would say no, because a legal privilege usually is a right that is enjoyed by a person or class of people not enjoyed by everyone. So, using the park is a right (implicitly licensed by the city), but it probably is not a privilege. Example of privilege: If you and I engage in a boxing match, I have a privilege to punch you in the face. I enjoy a right that is not enjoyed by others (a front row fan could be convicted of battery if he jumped into the ring and punched you, but I have the defense of privilege).