For issuing, not for 'not revoking.' I'm sure to get around the liability
they have some sort of escape clause otherwise the states would have been
sued out of existence long ago. Come to think of it not a bad idea they
serve no useful purpose anyway.

M.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:06:32 -0600, "Michael"
said:

Safe boating certificate is the legal way to go. If they state
'licenses' a
boater they assume a measure of responsibility having said the individual
is
capable of a certain level of activity. By calling it a safe boating
certificate they only show the boater has been exposed to a 'level' of
knowledge, the state therefore assumes no legal responsibility.

Nonsense. If you know of a case in which a state has been held liable for
not revoking a licensed driver's license, I'd like to know about it.