Form For Representatives Of Applicants And Licensees. Form For Representatives Of Ap: Fill & Download for Free

Nothing. Mills just provided, August, 2019, the fourth item that the theory allowed to be developed, and the second item being scrutinized for procurement or lease by the USA Department of Defense."Department of Defense has a Suncell running on its premises as a licensee":by July 21, 2019:according to Navid Sadikali(CEO at The End Of Petroleum) in the first segment at time stamp 0:00 to 17:45 on a talk show at r/BrilliantLightPowerthen scroll down to "End Of Petroleum talks Hydrino Energy - Live on Freedom Talk Live July 21, 2019"UPDATE: I (Frank Acland Moderator at E-Cat World.com) have received the following message from Navid Sadikali:“Request: please modify the article. My interview stated these facts.1) The SunCell is running.2) The DOD is a licensee through ARA.3) The DOD was onsite to see the SunCell.”It is finally happening, the Suncell is being scrutinized towards being leased by a commercial or military client.I communicated with Navid, several months ago. In a radio cast, he mentions something about Brett's book about Mills: "Randell Mills and The Search for Hydrino Energy" at time stamp 2:36 "we wrote about him"..:One of several books about Mills and the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics.I have been asked what I am doing to get GUT-CP accepted by the academics in physics. Navid is the one who might be actually doing something about that. By joining forces, that is what will break through the impasse formed by the physics community against GUT-CP and the device on Brilliant Light and Power and on sites such as Evaco LLC as well.GUT-CP is not cold fusion. CF and LENR try to explain their mechanisms using Standard Quantum Mechanics and are all full of various hypotheses that lead nowhere. GUT-CP is purely classical and has three items fully developed1)in 1986 the explanation for the DoD for how their Free Electron Laser works2) in 2007 developed process for manufacturing accordingto the predictions of GUT-CP, diamond thin film for such uses as as a scratch proof cover on cell phones or tablets and as a heat sink substrate on circuit mother board for chip components3) 2012 developed the Millsian® molecular modeller, available for free trail use by download, 100 times more accurate than any similar app made using SQMand at least 3 more items in development, one of which is the Suncell, which is being scrutinized by the USA DoD:4) finished proof of pronciple for the SUncell in 2000, and thefully functional and finely tuned and controlled version in May 2020, the Suncell the second item being considered by the DoD for procurement or lease, which item is being developed based on the predictions of GUT-CP,5) the Hydrino, fully validated in April -May 2020 is patented in many processes and devices since 2000 and is used as the mechanism that drives the Suncell:Randell L. Mills Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications6) the end point device using the Suncell’s ash, Hydrino’s or dark matter, from which indestructible plastics are being developed for us in the structure of that end point item and which end point item is to be powered by the first viable antigravity device, which is being developed by Huub Bakker of Massey University, NZ , in collaboration with Randell L. Mills, which device was patented as :FIFTH-FORCE APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROPULSIONWO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational force - Google Patentswhich antigravity device is mentioned in general terms in a university lecture at time stamp 00:29:08:20161019 Introduction to the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics_001What are all those patents validations and experiments and fully developed and commercially used items, if not proof or at least some indication of the accuracy of using GUT-CP and the Hydrino as a subset or prediction made since 1999, under that theory?The case for Millsian physicsNASA Takes a Flyer on Hydrinosfresno state lecture randell millsAs an update, this answer was flagged by someone hostile to the theory of Mills and tried to have this answer collapsed. This answer was eventually allowed to stay un-collapsed, since the one complaining did not provide a specific reason to have the answer censored.This attempt at censoring this answer begs the question, why? If the theory is as bad as some claim, or even a scam, why are not other, equally suspect theories not being attacked so strongly. Yet Mills theory is the only theory so singled out for strong censoring. The reason is that GUT-CP presents a threat to the some that are using SQM to make large incomes or gaining prestige, as in developing such devices and or related experiments, as controlled fusion and quantum computing. Both are dead end projects since the physics used, to develop these, is itself a dead end. In the Sun it is gravity that draws nucleons together, exactly centre on centre, very easily to very successfully attain fusion, while the nucleons in Earth based devices are pushed together, using magnetic confinement, which ends up doing something like trying to push wet noodles together; in quantum qbits, these particles always de-cohere a fraction of a second after the device starts to “compute” actually ending in non-computing anything. This is due to all devices using SQM, as a guide, which guide is based on imagined then assumed and therefore, at based are non-existant mechanism of waves. This was a mechanism that was then just a lucky guess about a seemingly viable mechanism that seemed to explain the 2 slit experiment. Then, using what was basically a wild guess, to be the base on which SQM has laid its foundation on. It seems to explain the 2 slit experiment, in the same way that square wheels might have been considered towards building a car, at at a time when wheels were an unknown. Then, finding the square wheels seemed worked ok if pushed hard enough, was decided on for use in building a car on top of that. Later, when industry was starting to get under way, cars were seen as having the potential of being developed for rapid transportation, but the cars are found to be difficult to move at the required speeds. Instead of looking back through its development, to find where the problem might be, the wheels are considered as off limits for such scrutiny and instead the motor is considered as the most likely place for finding the problem. The motor is looked at to see how to make it more and more powerful to make the car go as fast as the transportation needs require. This is similar to what is being considered currently, to find out why qbit are decohering, then using the qbits in a different, more robust way. This, as if the problem started with the qbits themselves, and not at an earlier development in SQM when waves were an assumed mechanism, that was assumed to exist in trying to explain the 2 slit experiment. The solution, in SQM, is then to attempt to make the qbits ever more robust, with current efforts ending making large complex devices that try to ensure the qbits do not decohere.This has resulted in quantum computing having purported successes in developing all of the peripheral items, such sotware, fudiciary concerns, building being funded and built for research into quantum computing, andall the rest, except for the hardware, circuit try in electronic chips that houses and makes up the q-bits themselves. It might be better to look all the way back to where the problem is known to have a big assumption involved, when waves were accepted as the best explanation for just one particular experiment. That was at the time when qbits and their use was not even dreamed of, but the waves were ok'd for use everywhere and in an inviolable way.I did all of the surveying of the topic completely independent of Mill and his associates. I read copies of all the original papers and people at the institutions where all of the original data and records and peer reviewed papers involved originate then read those papers and communicated with theose weho were closest related to those papers or who had access to the original records relating to such sources, to get at their side of the story in all this.The sources I have used are:L. A. Rozema, A. Darabi, D. H. Mahler, A. Hayat, Y. Soudagar, A. M. Steinberg, “Violation of Heisenberg’s Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100404 – Published 6 September 2012; Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 189902 (2012)Thomas E. Stolper, mathematician and Political analyst and Author of “America’s Newton, The reception of the work of Randell Mills, in historical and contemporary context”,Herman Haus, Institute profesor of Electronic Engineering,(1986). "On the radiation from point charges". American Journal of Physics. 54 (12): 1126–1129. Bibcode:1986AmJPh..54.1126H which paper was given to Mills by Haus used to develop the same model of the electron as developed by HausThe USA Department of Defense, and physics academia which accepted the FEL explanation provided by Haus,Philip Payne, Principal Scientist, Princeton University, Physicist in charge of using the topological predictions of the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics for use in developing the Millsian Molecular Modeller,Brett Holverstott: Science Philosopher, head of the development team of the Millsian Molecular ModellerGerrit Kroesen, Professor of Plasma Physics, Eindhoven Technologicl University, independently tested the Hydrino reaction and found no explanation for the reaction using SQM,NASA independently tested the hydrino reaction by sub contract to:Anthony J. Marchese, a mechanical engineering professor specializing in propulsion at Rowan University, with the conclusion being indeterminate of the cause of the reaction. “ From what I can tell from BlackLight's studies – and they've been pretty good about letting others outside verify their excess energy – there are some things going on that people are having trouble understanding.”Marchese, a PhD engineer from Princeton, says NASA granted him the money to study the feasibility of the BlackLight Rocket for six months. None of the NASA money will go to Mills or BlackLight Power, Marchese says, and his work will be done independently.Marchese's colleague at the Rowan College of Engineering, associate professor of electrical engineering Peter Mark Jansson, researched the BlackLight process while employed by Mills' backer Atlantic Energy, now part of the utility Conectiv.Besides Conectiv, Mills other subsidiaries using the theory are Evaco LLC, and Millsian Corp. The main company Brilliant Light and Power is growing exponentially since then.Scams just die out and disappear after getting a few million dollars and its perpetrators also disappear.Mills is still around and has all the earmarks of someone very successful, and well liked by the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, who themselves granted him a few million dollars. Chambers of commerce are made up of people who are not known to be taken in by any kind of scams, but are on the other hand always ready to promote any business that has shown great promise in producing successful goods and services to the local community, over a long period of time and which businesses are headed by equally good willed people. In the case of BrLP those people are:DAVID BENNETTMr. Bennett was appointed to the Board of Directors in 2018.Consultant – Strategic management consulting for growth businesses in aerospace, transportation and alternative energy field. Focused on startups through mid-sized firms.Mr. Bennett was CEO of Proterra electric bus startup and led the firm from prototype design through national validation and successful commercial launch. Raised funds from key investors, including Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, GM Ventures, and Mitsui & Co. Global Investment.Mr. Bennett worked with Eaton for ten years in a series of operating and corporate roles. His most recent roles were VP Business Development Industrial Sector and President Eaton’s Vehicle Group in Asia Pacific. The Vehicle Group AP business, headquartered in Shanghai, has operations in five countries providing full design, product development, production, sales and service solutions for a wide range of automotive and commercial vehicle customers.Previously, Mr. Bennett held a variety of general management positions in Europe and North America for the Truck business. He was also a general manager in Eaton Aerospace.Prior to joining Eaton in 2001, Mr. Bennett worked with Honeywell (formerly AlliedSignal) and General Electric in a variety of general management, operational, program management and technical roles for high technology aerospace and industrial businesses.Mr. Bennett holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and materials from Duke University and a master’s degree in business administration from Drexel University.Emilio Icaza ChavezMr. Icaza Chavez was appointed to the Board of Directors in 2018.Mr. Icaza Chavez is a co-founder and current Chairman of the Board of Aspel, a Mexico-based company which is the market leader in small business accounting software both in Mexico and in Colombia. Telmex bought an initial stake in Aspel in 2000; since then the relationship has evolved and Grupo Financiero Inbursa now owns a majority stake in Aspel.From 1989 to 1996, Mr. Icaza Chavez worked at GBM, one of the top brokerage houses in Mexico, where he was Co-Executive Director, in charge of Corporate Finance, Research and Investor Relations.In addition to his continued role at Aspel, Mr. Icaza Chavez co-founded Fusion de Ideas in 2008, a Private Equity investment vehicle with current investments in Energy, Software, Real Estate Development, Food, and other industries.Mr. Icaza Chavez is the main shareholder of Enextra Energía, a Mexican corporation which has signed a licensing agreement with Brilliant Light Power, Inc. to serve energy customers in certain industries within the Mexican Territory.Mr. Icaza Chavez was awarded a bachelor’s degree in business administration at Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico (ITAM) in Mexico City.JEREMY HUXMr. Hux was appointed to the Board of Directors in 2016.Mr. Hux is President of HCP Advisors, based in San Francisco, California. For nearly 20 years, he has advised Technology and Clean Technology companies on equity, debt, and strategic transactions.Prior to HCP Advisors, Mr. Hux spent nine years with Credit Suisse. He was a Managing Director and Global Head of Credit Suisse’s Clean Technology Investment Banking practice. In addition to running the Clean Technology effort at Credit Suisse, he worked extensively with semiconductor and storage companies. Mr. Hux joined Credit Suisse after approximately eight years with Morgan Stanley. At Morgan Stanley, he was Head of West Coast Clean Technology and also advised companies across the technology spectrum, including storage, networking, hardware, semiconductors, and contract design and manufacturing. Prior to Morgan Stanley, he advised Media and Entertainment companies at SG Cowen.Mr. Hux earned a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and History from Vanderbilt University, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude.DR. RANDELL L. MILLSDr. Mills, Founder and principal stockholder of Brilliant Light Power, Inc., has served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and President since 1991.Dr. Mills has authored nine books, participated in over 50 presentations at professional meetings, and authored and co-authored over 100 papers regarding the field of energy technology that have been published in peer-reviewed journals of international repute. Dr. Mills has received patents or filed patent applications in the following areas: (1) Millsian computational chemical design technology based on a revolutionary approach to solving atomic and molecular structures; (2) magnetic resonance imaging; (3) Mossbauer cancer therapy (Nature, Hyperfine Interactions); (4) Luminide class of drug delivery molecules; (5) genomic sequencing method, and (6) artificial intelligence. A thorough description of the Company’s technology and Dr. Mills’ underlying atomic theory is published in a book entitled The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics.Dr. Mills was awarded a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Chemistry, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Franklin & Marshall College in 1982, and a Doctor of Medicine Degree from Harvard Medical School in 1986. Following a year of graduate work in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Mills began his research in the field of energy technology.Roger S. Ballentine – CEO Green Strategies Inc.William Beck – Managing Director and Global Head of Engineering and Sustainability Services Credit SuisseH. McIntyre Gardner – Chairman of the Board, Spirit Airlines, Inc.Dr. Ray Gogel – President, Avanti EnterprisesJim Hearty – Former Partner of Clough Capital PartnersPhil Johnson – Former SVP – Intellectual Property Policy & Strategy of Johnson & Johnson – Law Department, Former SVP and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of Johnson & JohnsonMatt Key – Commercial Director Charge.autoBill Maurer – SVP ABM IndustriesJeffrey S. McCormick – Chairman and Managing General Partner of SaturnDavid Meredith – Chief Operations and Product Officer at Rackspace Hosting, Inc., President of Private Cloud & Managed Hosting at Rackspace Hosting, Inc.Bill Palatucci – Special Counsel Gibbons LawAmb R. James Woolsey – Former Director of the CIA under President Bill ClintonColin Bannon – Chief Architect BT Global ServicesMichael Harney – Managing Director, BTIGStan O’Neal – Formerly Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., Former Board Member of General Motors, Currently on the Board of ArconicRoger S. BallentineRoger Ballentine is the President of Green Strategies Inc., where he provides management consulting services to corporate and financial sector clients on sustainability strategy; investment and transaction evaluation and project development execution in the clean energy sector; and the integration of energy and environmental policy considerations into business strategy. He is also a Venture Partner with Arborview Capital LLC, a private equity firm making growth capital investments in the clean energy and energy efficiency sectors. Previously, Roger was a senior member of the White House staff, serving President Bill Clinton as Chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force and Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Initiatives. Prior to being named Deputy Assistant, Roger was Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs where he focused on energy and environmental issues. Before joining the White House, Roger was a partner at Patton Boggs LLP.Over the years, Roger has acquired a wealth of experience and knowledge of the energy sector, financial markets, and environmental business practices as well as the politics, players and trends in the energy and environmental space. Using his expertise and deep relationships, Roger has helped clients develop better business strategies, make better investment decisions, negotiate new business partnerships, build critical alliances with stakeholders, and devise impactful government and public affairs strategies.Roger currently serves on the Advisory Boards of the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Clean Capital LLC, 8 Rivers Capital, and the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), where he was a founding Board member in 2001. He is a member of Ingersoll Rand’s Advisory Council on Sustainability. Roger also serves on the Selection Committee for the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) Zayed Future Energy Prize and is the Co-Chair of the Aspen Institute’s Clean Energy Forum.In addition to being a frequent speaker, media commentator and writer, he has been a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School teaching in the area of energy and climate law and a Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington D.C.Roger is a Magna Cum Laude graduate of the University of Connecticut and a Cum Laude graduate of the Harvard Law School. He is a member of the Connecticut, District of Columbia, and the United States Supreme Court bars.William BeckWilliam Beck is a Managing Director within the Group Business Support Services (GBSS) Department of Credit Suisse. William is the Global Head of Critical Engineering & Sustainability, based in New York. He leads a team responsible for developing and implementing strategy and governance for the Bank’s Innovation, Energy management, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing & Fire (MEPF) design, Engineering Operations Maintenance, Environmental and Sustainability integration as well as the Data Center Strategy programs. His mandate also includes the bank’s Global Energy Strategy and Procurement integration. Bill has 25+ years of experience including the strategic planning, development, design, construction and operations of mission critical and non-mission critical facilities. William is a licensed Professional Engineer, Master Electrician and Energy procurement specialist. He holds a BSEE degree and a MS degree in Management, both from Fairleigh Dickenson University.H. McIntyre GardnerMr. Gardner was the head of Merrill Lynch’s Private Client business in the Americas and also the Global Bank Group within the firm’s Global Wealth Management Group until early 2008. As head of Private Client Americas, Mac was responsible for the region’s extensive network of more than 600 advisory offices; private banking and investment services to ultra-high net worth clients; the group’s middle markets business; investment and insurance products; distribution and business development; and corporate and diversified financial services.For the Global Bank Group, Mr. Gardner was Chairman of Merrill Lynch Bank USA and responsible for Merrill Lynch’s consumer and commercial banking and cash management products. This included distribution and sales of all bank products and services primarily delivered into the marketplace through Financial Advisors. These activities encompassed retail deposit products and services, credit and debit cards, commercial cash management, residential mortgage lending, securities-based/small business/high-net-worth structured/middle-market lending, and community development lending and investing.Mr. Gardner’s 13-year career at Merrill Lynch also included roles in strategy, Finance Director for the corporation, and as an investment banker specializing in high yield finance, mergers and acquisitions and corporate restructuring.Mr. Gardner has also served as the principal of a financial advisory services firm and as the president of two consumer products companies. He has served on the Board of Directors of Spirit Airlines, Inc. since 2010 and has served as Chairman since August 2013. He also serves on the North American Strategic Advisory Board of Oliver Wyman. Mr. Gardner is a 1983 graduate of Dartmouth College, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in religion.Dr. Ray GogelDr. Ray Gogel started his career in academia, where he obtained his PhD with distinction in philosophy from Drew University after studying for four years in Germany with leading Continental philosophers. Ray’s background in philosophy has permeated the rest of his career, driving a strong and abiding interest in forward-thinking leadership and business models, as well as innovation and disruptive technology. Ray moved from academia to a career in the utility and power industry, progressing through a variety of operational, leadership and business development roles at Public Service Electric & Gas Co in New Jersey, before he left to join IBM as a solution architect, where he designed, sold and delivered IBM’s first Business Process Outsourcing transaction (PG&E Energy Services). Gogel progressed within IBM to become VP—Client Services, responsible for IBM’s largest utility customer and P&L, before joining Xcel Energy, headquartered in Minneapolis.At Xcel, Ray reported directly to the CEO as CIO and later in the expanded role of CAO and President of Customer and Enterprise Solutions, where he managed the core areas of IT, Customer Care/Marketing, Human Resources and Utility Innovation. During his tenure, Xcel received recognition as a premier IT organization in InformationWeek’s Top 500 Awards, placing in the Top 20 for 3 years and twice winning their Business Technology Optimization award. Ray was featured in ComputerWorld’s Premier 100 IT Leaders. Xcel’s unique outsourcing model and use of Strategic Advisory Boards has been the subject of various publications and an early driving force for transformational outsourcing in the utility industry. In 2006, Xcel was awarded the prestigious Edison award from the Edison Electric Institute for its ‘Utility of the Future’ initiatives in IT, as well as Utility of the Year in 2009 from EnergyBiz Magazine for its unique and pioneering ‘SmartGridCity™’ efforts.Ray left Xcel Energy to serve as President and COO of Current Group, an innovative US-based start-up Smart Grid company specializing in cutting-edge smart grid operations and analytics with clients in NA, Europe and AP. He also served as Global Head of Smart Grid for Nokia-Siemens Networks as they explored entry into the Smart Grid adjacency. Ray spent two years as a Managing Director in Accenture’s Resources Group, working as a market-maker for strategic pursuits.In 2014, Ray co-founded USGRDCO with Jay Worenklein and David Mohler and served as President and COO. USGRDCO’s objective is to upgrade the distribution systems of America’s utilities and accelerate the benefits of grid modernization through commercial microgrids and distributed energy resources, thereby offering utilities alternative paths to more efficient, reliable, resilient and secure power systems. Ray and his team pioneered a series of microgrid archetypes and designs, suitable for utilities, private communities and smart cities, which USGRDCO believes represents the future of the North American grid. Ray left his COO role at USGRDCO to found his own consulting group, Avanti Enterprises, Inc., where he provides strategic consulting and business planning to companies in the power sector.During his career, Ray has served on IBM’s Strategic Advisory Board, The World Economic Forum, the Colorado Smart Grid Task Force, EEI’s Smart Grid Workshop Group, the Board of MedicAlert International, Denver’s United Way and Goodwill.Jim HeartyGraduate of Williams College and The Advanced Management Program of the Harvard Business School.Jim began as a bond trader at First National Bank of Boston, where he eventually ran the Bond Department, (the largest underwriter of Tax Exempt Debt in New England with a significant business in US Government and Agency Securities and Money Market securities). In the early 1990’s, Jim was the Assistant Secretary of Administration and Finance for Governor Bill Weld and responsible for all Bond Financings for the Commonwealth and Agencies and Authorities where the Governor served on the Board.Over the course of his career he also served as: Board Member of the Public Securities Association and a Board Member and Chairman of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, Board Member of the Mass HFA, The Mass Industrial Finance Agency, The Massachusetts Land Bank and the Pension Reserve Investment Management Board (The State Pension System) among others. Remained on the Board of the Pension System and co-through the terms of Governors Weld, Cellucci, Swift and Romney.Working at Lehman Brothers as a banker in the Tax Exempt Division, Jim was responsible for Business in New England and grew the franchise substantially, lead managed significant issues in all New England State. Became the Head of Public Finance in 1998, and Co-Head of the Tax Exempt Division including all trading and underwriting in 2000, and grew the Business substantially.In 2002, he was the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Pension Reserve, and served for two years as ED and CIO of the $70 Billion Pension Fund. Then in 2005, Jim was a Partner of Relational Investors, one of the original “Activist” Institutional Investors, and grew the business from $1.5 Billion to $5 Billion Dollars in AUM. Significant Engagements included Home Depot, Sovereign Bancorp, Hewlett-Packard and Sprint. In 2008, he became a Partner of Clough Capital Partners and was responsible for fundraising in the Institutional Market, where he grew the AUM in our long/short fund from $500 Million to $2.0 Billion.Jim is married to Doris Blodgett since 1975, 3 sons, Resident of Boston.Phil JohnsonPhil is currently a member of the Board and Executive Committee of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (“IPO”), Co-Chapter Editor of the Sedona Conference WG10 biopharmaceutical patent litigation project, and member of the board of the Monell Chemical Senses Center. Phil recently retired as Senior Vice President – Intellectual Property Policy & Strategy of Johnson & Johnson – Law Department. Prior to April of 2014, he was Senior Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of Johnson & Johnson where he managed a worldwide group of about 270 IP professionals, of whom over 100 were patent and trademark attorneys.Before joining Johnson & Johnson in 2000, Phil was a senior partner and co-chair of IP litigation at Woodcock Washburn in Philadelphia. During his 27 years in private practice, Phil counseled independent inventors, startups, universities and businesses of all sizes in all aspects of intellectual property law. His diverse practice pertained to advances in a wide variety of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, medical devices, consumer products, semi-conductor fabrication, automated manufacturing, materials and waste management. During his time in private practice, Phil served as trial counsel in countless IP disputes, including cases resolved by arbitration, bench trials, jury trials and appeals to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, many of which resulted in reported decisions.During his tenure at Johnson & Johnson, Phil served terms on the Medical Device & Diagnostics and Pharmaceutical Group Operating Committees responsible for managing J&J’s many businesses in these fields, while also serving on the senior management team responsible for J&J’s legal organization, which has now grown to over 450 attorneys located in 70+ locations in 35+ countries.Phil’s has previously served as the Chair of the Board of American Intellectual Property Law Education Foundation, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, as President of INTERPAT, as President of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation, as co-founder and member of the Steering Committee of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, as Chair of PhRMA’s IP Focus Group and as Board Member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.Phil’s has previously served as the Chair of the Board of American Intellectual Property Law Education Foundation, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, as President of INTERPAT, as President of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel, as President of the Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation, as co-founder and member of the Steering Committee of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, as Chair of PhRMA’s IP Focus Group and as Board Member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.Phil has frequently testified before both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees about patent law reform and, more recently, abusive patent litigation. Phil served as a member of Chief Judge Michel’s Advisory Council on Patent Reform, and was recognized in the Congressional Record as a member of the Minority Whip Jon Kyle’s “Kitchen Cabinet” for the America Invents Act (“AIA”). Thereafter, Phil served as IPO’s representative on the ABA-AIPLA-IPO committee of six experts (“COSE”) formed at Director Kappos’ request to propose regulations to the USPTO for implementing the PGR-IPR post-grant proceedings created by the AIA.Phil co-authored “Compensatory Damages Issues In Patent Infringement Cases, A Pocket Guide for Federal District Court Judges,” published by the Federal Judicial Center, and has served that Center as a faculty member on its IP-related judicial education programming. Phil was also featured in the Landslide Publication March/April 2013 issue. Most recently, Phil authored “The America Invents Act on Its Fifth Anniversary: A Promise Thus Far Only Partially Fulfilled,” published on 9/15/2016 in IP Watchdog.Phil’s awards include the Woodcock Prize for Legal Excellence (1997); the New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association’s Jefferson Medal (2013); the Philadelphia Intellectual Property Association’s Distinguished Intellectual Property Practitioner award (May, 2017), induction into the international IP Hall of Fame by the IP Hall of Fame Academy (June, 2017) and the Intellectual Property Owners Association “Carl B. Horton President’s Distinguished Service Award” (September, 2017).Phil received his Bachelor of Science degree, cum laude with distinction in biology from Bucknell University, and his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School.Matt KeyMatt has been changing business through the innovative use of technology throughout his career. He has successfully transformed how businesses approach the market and enabled the creation of repeatable and sophisticated services and solutions whilst bringing in many new clients.Prior to Everynet and now Charge (a new connected electric truck manufacturer) he ran the Global IoT Business for Vodafone and before led the Enterprise division in Cable & Wireless Worldwide. Other experience includes working for Siemens IT Solutions and Services, Capita and Barclays.Bill MaurerBill Maurer is the Senior Vice President of ABM Industries. Mr. Maurer is responsible for managing the Energy portfolio for ABM. ABM Industries is a best-in-class provider of Integrated Facility Services which include – Energy Solutions, Mechanical Service and Construction, Facility Management, Janitorial, Security, and Parking Services for building owners and operators in North America and selected international locations. ABM is one of the nation’s most successful single source providers of high value facilities management and building optimization services.Mr. Maurer has over 20 years of experience in the Energy Industry where he has held various and increasing levels of management and responsibility. Most recently, Mr. Maurer joined ABM in 2006. Under his guidance, the Energy Solutions division has maintained exponential growth year after year. To do this Mr. Maurer had to completely re-organize and re-structure the existing energy division. There were significant changes made in personnel, market focus and overall strategy towards the Energy Business. Through the changes that were made in Energy offerings, ABM is now able to offer to their clients a unique program to provide cost savings that allow them to fund needed improvements to reduce energy consumption, reduce environmental impact and comply with government regulations. Not only has the revenue increased substantially in the Energy division, but the unique solutions delivered by ABM and the markets in which were focused on has also increased dramatically.With a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Maurer’s career path began at the Systems and Services Division of Johnson Controls, an internationally renowned building technology and manufacturing leader. At Johnson Controls, he spent nearly 8 years in sales and management positions where he was a top performer with a track record of consistent top performances in growth, sales achievement, profitability and leadership.Over the past 21 years, Mr. Maurer has been involved with over $900M in Energy Saving Programs to customers. He is a recognized leader in the industry by his co-workers and competition alike. He is involved with leadership positions in multiple industry related organizations – NAESCO (Board Member), BOMA, ASHRAE (Former Treasurer) and Energy Services Coalition. Mr. Maurer has been involved in multiple speaking engagements at industry/ market events and The White House. Mr. Maurer is also involved with and holds leadership positions within 2 Cancer Fund Organizations.On a personal note, Mr. Maurer has a wife of 20 years and two children (16 old boy and 14 old girl). They have lived in Milford, MI area for the past 11 years. He enjoys playing competitive hockey, soccer and golf. He is an avid outdoorsman and enjoys hunting – specifically pheasant and duck. Reading financial, motivational and educational books is a daily practice.Jeffrey S. McCormickJeffrey is the Chairman and Managing General Partner of Saturn. He founded Saturn in 1993 and began financing early stage companies including, the extremely successful business to business e-commerce company, FreeMarkets (FMKT, acquired by ARBA); the largest U.S. biodiesel company, Twin Rivers Technologies (acquired by FELDA); email marketing company, Constant Contact (CTCT); and the extremely popular Boston Duck Tours. Saturn Partners II and III, have invested in cutting-edge technology companies in healthcare, education, energy, IT and environmental businesses.Jeffrey has over 25 years of experience as an investment banker, entrepreneur and venture capitalist. He currently serves on the boards including BioWish, Knopp Biosciences, Third Pole, and XNG Energy.Jeffrey is a graduate of Syracuse University, where he received an MBA in Finance and a BS in Biology. He was a Collegiate Scholar Athlete, first year team All-American lacrosse player, and a captain of Syracuse’s first NCAA championship lacrosse team.Jeffrey is a Vice Chair of the CitiCenter for the Performing Arts. He serves on the Dean’s Advisory Committee of the School of Management at Syracuse University and is Founding Principal Financier of the Sean McDonough Charities for Children. He is actively involved with the Trinity Church in Boston.Jeffrey is married with three children.David MeredithDavid Meredith has been Chief Operations and Product Officer at Rackspace Hosting, Inc. since January 2018. Mr. Meredith’s responsibilities include P&L oversight of the vision, operational and administrative direction of Rackspace’s product lines, operations, technology and service delivery functions. Mr. Meredith has been the President of Private Cloud & Managed Hosting at Rackspace Hosting, Inc. since June 1, 2017. Prior to joining Rackspace, Mr. Meredith served as the President of global data centers at CenturyLink. He has led international managed hosting businesses in roles including senior manager, president, Chief Executive Officer and board director. His experience spans a range of industry verticals from venture-backed firms such as NeuPals in China to business units of large public companies such as Capital One, CGI and VeriSign. He served as Senior Vice President and Global General Manager for Technology Solutions at CenturyLink, Inc. As an industry thought leader, he has provided insights for leading media outlets such as BusinessWeek, USA Today and The Washington Post. CIO Magazine, Wireless Week and The Huffington Post have published his articles. He has spoken on industry topics for NBC’s Carson Daly Show, NPR’s Morning Edition, Seoul Broadcasting System, PBS’ Nightly Business Report and at analyst forums such as Gartner, Bloomberg, Yankee and Cantor Fitzgerald. In December 2016, the respected Uptime Institute recognized his contributions to the Industry by selecting him for their Change Leader Award. He was named “Top 40 under 40 – Best and Brightest Leaders” by Georgia Trend Magazine in 2008. Mr. Meredith graduated with honors from James Madison University with a Bachelor of Business Administration in finance and he earned a Masters in IT management from the University of Virginia, where he serves on the UVA advisory board.Bill PalatucciBill Palatucci is one of the state’s most prominent and widely respected attorneys, with a reputation for strategic planning and advice regarding complex public policy and communications initiatives. He has been named among NJBIZ’s “100 Most Powerful People in New Jersey Business” every year that the issue has been published.Most recently, following the Republican National Convention through Election Day, Mr. Palatucci served as General Counsel to the Presidential Transition Committee of President Donald J. Trump. In this role, he was responsible for all legal matters related to ethics compliance and contracts and agreements between such agencies as the U.S. Department of Justice, General Services Administration, and the White House. Mr. Palatucci coordinated extensively with internal and external members assisting the transition, providing all necessary legal advice and guidance to facilitate the Transition Committee’s interactions with the Trump-Pence campaign, federal departments and agencies, local, state, and federal officials, think tanks, outside experts and consultants, and various other entities and individuals with whom the Transition Committee engaged with during the pre-Election Day time period.Mr. Palatucci also served as General Counsel to Governor Christie’s presidential campaign. In 2013, he served as Chairman of the Governor’s reelection campaign and as Co-Chair for the Governor’s Inaugural Committee.In 2010, Mr. Palatucci was elected the Republican National Committeeman for New Jersey, and, for the past 30 years, he has had a hand in some of the most important state and federal elections in New Jersey. Over this time, he has led the reelection campaigns of President Ronald Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, and Governor Tom Kean, and he served as a senior advisor to Governor George W. Bush’s presidential campaign in 2000. Mr. Palatucci was also the principal consultant for Christine Todd Whitman’s run for the U.S. Senate in 1990.Amb R. James WoolseyAmbassador R. James Woolsey was the Director of Central Intelligence for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 1993 to 1995. He’s been appointed by Presidents to positions of leadership during the administrations of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. In a town riven by partisan divisions, Ambassador Woolsey is widely respected on both sides of the aisle.A national security and energy specialist, he is the Chancellor of the Institute of World Politics and Chair of the Leadership Council of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Chairs the United States Energy Security Council. He is also a Venture Partner with Lux Capital and chairs the Strategic Advisory Group of the Paladin Capital Group, a multi-stage private equity firm.He is a frequent contributor of articles to major publications, and gives public speeches and media interviews on the subjects of energy, foreign affairs, defense, and intelligence.This just a partial list of the high powered personnel sources I have used. Mills himself is just one of the thousands involved so far.

Kodak has become a byword for failure — generally believed to be failure to innovate, however the real story is a lot more complex and nuanced than that. While Kodak dominated the film industry, in fact Kodak also invented digital imaging, and pretty much led the field for innovation for 30 years.So what went wrong?Credit for the invention of the original imaging chip — the Charge Coupled Device (CCD) — actually belongs to Bell Laboratories researchers Willard Boyle and George E. Smith. The pair had conceived of a simple shift register device that simply transferred electrical charge from one cell to another like a bucket brigade, and which would become the basis of the CCD image sensor.A part of AT&T’s 1956 consent decree with the Justice Department required Bell Laboratories to openly share it’s research and license it’s patents. As a division of AT&T, Bell Labs itself produced nothing but research — AT&T products were traditionally manufactured by Western Electrical, which was another division of AT&T. Every year, Bell Labs would hold a presentation to all of it’s technology licensees at an auditorium at Bell Labs.It was a young Bell Labs scientist called Gil Amelio, responsible for some of the fundamental work behind the CCD patents, that became responsible for sharing the CCD research. In the audience for his 1971 presentation on CCDs was John Atala of Fairchild Semiconductor. Amelio also presented CCDs at an International conference in Scotland, and later to Toshiba and Sony in Japan, amongst others.Following an invitation from John Atala, Amelio followed the opportunity to pursue his research all the way through to a product at Fairchild. There, he led the team that would product the World’s first imaging sensors — a linear 500 ‘pixel’ device, and a 100 x 100 pixel CCD array, first announced by Fairchild Semiconductor on November 22, 1973. Collectively, Gil Amelio and the Fairchild team ended up taking numerous patents on CCD design and manufacture, which would ultimately be almost the only money Fairchild ever made on the technology.The first commercial application for CCD technology was a 1,728 element linear sensor developed by Fairchild for Xerox fax machines.Originally developed at the request of the U.S. Navy, it was Fairchild’s first crude 100 x 100 CCD sensor array that seems to have piqued the most interest, however.In December 1974, a Kodak executive named Gareth A. Lloyd was interested enough to ask a freshly recruited 23-year old with a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering, “Why don't you see if you can do some imaging with this device?”Steven Sasson was starting from scratch in uncharted territory. He ordered two of Fairchild’s Type 201 100 x 100 pixel CCD sensors. These chips were so early in their development cycle that the instructions included in the box were hand-written. It would be another six months before academic papers started to appear on the use of these devices. (It wasn’t until June 1975, for example, that the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) published one of the first academic papers that explored the use of a CCD for imaging).Steven Sasson later recounted in an interview with journalist Stewart Wolpin, “I started to look around how these things worked and read whatever I could about them. Then I thought about how to capture images, then maybe building a camera. It became really came clear to me that if I could digitise an image, freeze it and hold it and analyse it and store it and look at it, that was sort of the goal.”There was no blueprint, no prior art that Sasson could follow. Taking image capture as his starting point, he used a 4-bit Motorola analogue-to-digital converter, and a dozen 4-kilobit dynamic ram (DRAM) chips to capture the meagre output of the CCD chip. He worked to coordinate the clocking of the CCD chip wit the A/D converter and memory chips. The CCD sensor needed a 20V supply, which dictated 16 AA batteries, while the logic circuitry needed only 5V. All of the development was done using just an oscilloscope to check that the CCD circuitry was functioning correctly, but having captured impulses from the CCD, he still had no persistent storage. Sasson added the lens from a Kodak XL55 Super-8mm movie camera, a Memodyne Model 300 data cassette recorder, and effectively created the World’s first portable digital camera.By December 1975, Steven Sasson had captured, stored and displayed the first digital camera image — of lab technician Joy Marshall, working down the hall at Kodak’s apparatus laboratories.Unlike Kodak’s consumer film cameras, this was no polished product. It looked like something made from Meccano, weighed 4 Kg, and was about the size of a toaster. “It's an odd-looking beast," Sasson himself noted. “Odd today and really odd in 1975.” A lot of the internal connections were wire-wrap connections on bread-board circuits, and as often as not, these connections failed, rendering the camera useless.Like Kodak’s film cameras however, this crude device could capture and store 30 images, although each image was a 4-bit, grayscale image, just 100 x 100 pixels, and took 23 seconds to load to tape. Kodak was granted the first of it’s patents for an “electronic still camera” in 1978, but outside Kodak’s apparatus lab, where Sasson worked, the project was still top-secret.Kodak was not the only company interested in the CCD.By the time Sasson had displayed his first images, there had been an IEEE conference on CCDs in San Diego, CA. that October, that had attracted no less than 48 presentations. Fairchild, Bell Northern, Intel, Sony, Texas Instruments, NEC, Matsushita Electrical (Panasonic) and RCA were all actively pursuing CCD development.By June 1975 RCA had unveiled an experimental ‘tubeless’ TV camera, that featured a CCD sensor (SID 5000) with 512 x 380 pixels. The camera utilised 3 of these sensors to deliver NTSC-standard colour output.In December 1976 a satellite named Kennan was launched containing the first the first real-time imaging device in space, based on linear CCD sensor technology. Because the satellite is always in motion, a linear array enabled the satellite to essentially “scan” the surface of the Earth. The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory had also applied RCA’s CCDs to X-Ray detection.After seeing Gil Amelio make his presentation in Japan, Sony invested years developing their own CCD sensor capability. In 1981 Sony launched the Mavica — a still camera with 570 x 490 pixel resolution. The Mavica recorded images onto a 2” floppy disk, and could replay them on a TV, but it was still not a digital camera. A CCD sensor is an analogue device, with electrical output proportional to the light falling on the sensor, and the Mavica recorded analogue signal on it’s disks. Sony would not have a digital Mavica (FD5 model) in market until 1997.Canon introduced their RC701 and Nikon launched the QV 1000C in 1988, but both of these cameras, like the Sony Mavica, were analogue cameras writing to special 2” floppy disks.Steve Sasson’s crude digital camera prototype was literally still years ahead of the competition.By 1987, Kodak had perfected a 1-megapixel (1,320 x 1,025) sensor, called the M-1, and by 1988 Kodak’s Federal Systems Division had adapted it to a 35mm Canon F1 film camera.Adapting a standard 35mm camera to a digital sensor was relatively easy. The focal plane (the point in the camera on which the image is focused), is easily exposed by opening the back of the camera, and the standard flash contacts signal the point at which the shutter is wide-open. Kodak replaced the standard camera back with a CCD panel, sandwiched to a thermo-electric cooling panel, to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. The camera was then connected by a ribbon cable to the digital mechanism. That mechanism was a breadbox-sized device that contained, among other things, a lead-acid battery, 100Mb hard drive and controller — hardly a practical field camera.Attaching a CCD sensor to a mature camera like a Canon F1, with it’s complement of lenses and attachments, made perfect sense. It remained a one-off proof-of-concept experiment however.Kodak tried again with a more compact version, once again based on the Canon F1, in 1989. Using solid-state memory, and avoiding the thermoelectric cooler, made for a much more compact and rugged system, although it was still a two-device tethered system, and once again remained a proof-of-concept project. Just two devices were made.An all-in-one device called the ‘Hawkeye’ followed, based on the Nikon F3 camera. It was Kodak’s first non-tethered device, based on solid state memory, and it appeared no bigger or bulkier on the F3 than Nikon’s optional MD-4 motor drive.The ‘Hawkeye’ at least appeared field-ready, although there was another version, called the ‘Hawkeye II’ that featured the modular, tethered design of the first FSD prototypes. The final Hawkeye prototype featured Kodak’s new M3 sensor, providing an RGB colour image for the first time. Only a handful of any of these cameras were ever produced, however one of these machines was carried aboard the space shuttle Atlantis, in November 1991.In an attempt to consolidate all of the work being done by the Federal Systems and Professional divisions of the company, by 1989 Kodak had established an Electronic Photography Division. The intent was to coordinate research and development and create products that Federal and Professional divisions could take to their respective markets.The first fruit of the combined effort was a product called the D-5000, or ECAM.Developed by a team that included Steve Sasson and Robert Hills, the D-5000 was actually the first digital SLR camera to look and function pretty much like a modern DSLR. The D-5000 used Kodak’s own 1,280 x 1,024 pixel colour CCD sensor, and offered storage with removable flash memory cards. The D-5000 had access to the full range of Pentax K-mount lenses and accessories, including through-the-lens flash photography, but appears to have been another prototype and was never officially marketed.Kodak’s last modular, tethered camera hit the market as the DCS 100, in 1991. Based on Nikon’s F3 camera body, which could still be used with Nikon’s MD4 motor drive in tethered configuration, the DCS 100 was based on Kodak’s latest M3, 1,280 x 1,024 CCD sensor. The DCS 100 could be purchased in any of six model variants, in colour and monochrome versions, with or without a JPEG compression board included.The physical bulk of the system was dictated by components such as sealed lead-acid batteries, and a 200 Mb hard disk drive, good for 1,609 uncompressed or 600 compressed images. Connectivity was via a 50-pin SCSI port on the unit, which also supported NTSC video output.Kodak boasted that professionals could switch to digital without switching cameras, but the tethered systems alone were a lot more equipment than most journalists were accustomed to carrying around — and that was just the camera! To make this system a palatable option for photojournalists, Kodak sold them with a nylon courier bag, and a hard travel case. By the time the system was deleted in 1994, just 987 units had been sold.For customers coming of age in a Photoshop-and-Pagemaker world, Kodak launched the DCS 200 at the annual MacWorld event in 1992. Based on Nikon’s N8008 camera, which was then the cheapest Nikon with a removable back, the maturity of Kodak’s capability in digital photography enabled them to take the DCS 200 to market in less than a year, surprising even Nikon, who were not aware that their N8008 had even been adapted in this way.Once again, the technology dictated the size of the package, and the new 2.5” hard drives supported 80 Mb of storage, or 50 images, on-board below the adapted camera. Rechargeable batteries gave way to AA batteries in both the camera body and in the camera back, and 3,240 DCS 200s in various configurations are thought to have been sold by 1994.The most important feature of the DCS 200 was actually it’s architecture. With only minor modifications, the DCS architecture became the basis for the NCS 2000 series, DCS 4XX and EOS DCS X systems. The built-in hard 2.5” drive was substituted for PCMCIA-format slots that supported the new 1” micro-drives as well as emerging flash memory options. The same basic architecture supported CCD sensors from 1.2 to 6 megapixels, with 12-bit A/D conversion and SCSI support.In another development, Nikon and Kodak finally formed a closer technical partnership, which would spawn numerous new models, based on Nikon camera bodies. The new Kodak DCS4XX series digital cameras were all based on Nikon’s new N90 body, as was the NC 2000 model, produced exclusively for Associated Press members.In total the DCS410/DCS460 range was responsible for about 5,000 unit sales, and was Kodak’s most successful foray into digital photography up to that time. If those don’t seem like massive volumes, it’s worth remembering the unit price of these cameras: the AP version sold for US$17,500 each. (At the time a standard Nikon N90 camera body retailed for just US$1,090).The DCS 460 debuted Kodak’s M6 CCD — a new 6-megapixel sensor that made the DCS460 “the World’s highest resolution portable digital camera.” The most famous DCS 460 is undoubtedly the one that astronaut John Glenn carried into space aboard the space shuttle Atlantis in March 1996. That hardly justified the US$35,600 list price though, and by 2000 when the model was closed out it retailed for US$2,500.Kodak’s Federal Systems Division adapted DCS 4XX cameras with GPS technology, and even repackaged the electronics for underwater configurations and ‘rugged’ applications.In another development of the DCS 200 architecture, a version was produced for Canon, who could hardly ignore the opportunity to offer their own customers digital technology. Canon adapted their EOS 1N bodies to take Kodak’s NC2000 camera back, and created the EOS DCS 1, 3 and 5 series cameras, ranging from 1.2 to 6 megapixels, in monochrome, colour and infrared versions. Canon also marketed the EOS DCS 1 and 3 versions, and all in all, about 1,000 of all variations of this model were sold.Better than anyone, Kodak understood that professional segment of the market relied on larger medium-format cameras, and introduced a digital back for medium format cameras like the Hasselblad. Really a modified DCS 460, the DCS 465 sold a modest 200 units.At Tokyo MacWorld in 1994, Apple launched the QuickTake 100 — ostensibly the first ‘consumer’ market digital camera. The QuickTake 100 offered 640 x 480 pixels (0.3 megapixels!) of 24-bit colour resolution, could store just 8 images in it’s 1Mb memory, and download to a Macintosh computer via an AppleTalk serial network at a maximum of 230 Kb/sec!The QuickTake 100 was actually manufactured for Apple by Kodak, and while Kodak might initially have been less interested in the consumer end of the market, the AppleTalk connection with Macintosh computers rounded out Apple’s desktop publishing vision. The SD-video 640 x 480 pixel resolution seemed light even then, but for US$749 it represented good value for money, and there was nothing else of that quality in the consumer market. Kodak later brought out it’s own almost identical DC40 model, with a 756 x 504 pixel sensor.‘Hybrid’ technology might have been a blind spot for Kodak. For all their innovation in digital technology, Kodak didn’t appear to have considered ways in which digital technology might have augmented the traditional film business. Digital technology was about to transform and improve the traditional photography product in a more subtle way. If digital photography threatened film sales, photo-processing was actually where the silver was hidden. Processing traditionally earned the industry more than twice as much as film sales.For years the byline of Kodak advertising had been George Eastman’s original promise, “You press the button, we do the rest.” Kodak had perfected a vertically integrated imaging system — cameras, film, developing and printing. The brand implied an assurance that this system would produce the best results, and there was indeed some truth to that. Independent tests proved that Kodak, Fuji and Agfa had all optimised their film and photographic paper to complement the subtle colour biases in each.It was Fuji that first introduced the digital minilab in 1996.The Fuji Frontier SP-1000 used a conventional film processing system and a revolutionary new digital printer. Fuji’s Frontier digital minilab succeeded in breaking Kodak’s virtual monopoly, and was ultimately the innovation that commoditised both film, and retail processing.The Frontier SP-1000 minilab comprised a conventional film processor, a digital scanner and an LED-based photo printer. The introduction of digital technology into the process meant that images could easily be previewed and corrected for basic image issues such as exposure and colour balance. Negatives were pre-scanned and the results displayed on a monitor so that the operator could correct colour balance and exposure settings before the images were sent to the laser printer, which used LED lasers to expose conventional photographic paper. The exposed paper was then developed in a conventional ‘wet’ photographic printer.Among other features, Fuji’s Frontier recognised the DX barcode below the sprocket holes of almost all film, and adapted the scanning and output profile for each film type.Fuji didn’t just offer competition, the Frontier minilab attacked Kodak’s core brand values. The Frontier minilab was the stroke of genius that enabled Fuji to better even Kodak’s brand promise, adapting to not just the film type, but compensating for the exposure and colour characteristics of an individual image also. The Fuji Frontier promised better results from almost any brand of film, under almost any conditions, lowering the ‘rejection rate,’ making for happier customers.The new, smaller scale and lower operating costs of the next-generation mini-labs also enabled Fuji to broaden their distribution of retail outlets in a way that nobody seems to have anticipated. Fuji quickly achieved mass market penetration, offering 60-minute in-store processing, soon picking up distribution deals with the likes of Wal-Mart and Walgrens pharmacy chains. Fuji soon dominated the OEM and generic film sales.At a shareholders meeting in 1978, Kodak had demonstrated technology that digitised film to produce high-quality prints, and was not far behind Fuji with a digital minilab of their own, but were naturally wary of attacking their existing distribution chain. Fuji of course had nothing to protect and everything to gain, and ultimately it was Kodak’s protected customer base that was under attack.Even in the digital era, for years there was nothing that came close to traditional photographic printing for the resolution, quality or traditional look and feel of it’s prints. Twenty years later, photographic prints are all digital — either from scans of film, or digital source files. Traditional ‘wet’ photographic printing has all but given way to inkjet technology in so called ‘dry’ minilabs.Inevitably, digital minilab capability became all about software. Just one company, Noritsu, finally ended up making minilab hardware for Kodak, Agfa and Fuji!If the future of film was starting to look a little ‘pixelated,’ Kodak had far from thrown in the towel. In 1995 Kodak applied to the Court Of Appeals to terminate both the 1921 and 1954 consent decrees that had restrained the company in the market. The purpose of the original decrees had long since been served. Competition had become well-established, and Kodak now held a much less than commanding share of the marketEven the Appeals Court agreed that Kodak no longer had any real market power. By 1995, the Court noted, Kodak was just one of at least five companies, including Fuji, Konica, Agfa, and 3M, that had all established successful photographic businesses in America. By that stage Kodak’s share of the worldwide market was 36%, and Fuji had raised it’s stake to 34%.In America, Kodak still commanded a 67% market share, against Fuji’s 12%, although Fuji also supplied house brand product for K-Mart and Wal-Mart, who were thought to retail half of all film sold, albeit at significant discounts.The strength of Kodak’s brand meant that Kodak still commanded 75% of film sales by value, but Kodak’s dominance, and it’s price premium, had clearly been decimated. In the USA Kodak’s “small and declining market premium” had been slowly eroded to only an average of 4.5% over Fuji, but the court believed that was evidence of Fuji’s aggressive discounting strategy, rather than any perceived strength in the Kodak brand.The court found that Kodak was often unable to achieve any kind of premium in the mass market, whereas just five years previously they had achieved an average of 6.3%. The court believed that if Kodak were to raise it’s US prices by just 5% they would likely lose a further 10% market share. Elsewhere, it was Kodak that was forced into a much more aggressive posture. Around the World, Kodak product was cheapest in Japan, where the company held only 10% market share against a dominant Fuji.After nine days of deliberations, the Court unshackled Kodak and terminated the consent decrees, but that was really only a pyrrhic victory for Kodak at that point.It looks like a distraction now, but in 1996 there was yet another photographic format in market. The Advanced Photo System was an initiative between Kodak (Advantix), Fuji (Nexia), Agfa (Futura), Konica (Centuria), Nikon (Pronea), Canon (EOS IX) and Minolta (Vectis), based on a smaller frame size, with a correspondingly smaller, lighter cameras. Beginning in 1991, the thinking apparently went that the 35mm format had become ‘stale,’ and that some innovation might stimulate demand for film, for cameras and for photography in general.This was a US$500 million dollar initiative, that somehow remained the industry’s best-kept secret for almost 5 years. The project was even awarded the Project Management Institute “Project Of The Year Award” in 1997.The secrecy was critical. As depressed as the photographic industry may have been, news of a new format could have stalled the market entirely.The 24mm-wide APS film stock covered only 58% of the image area of a conventional 35mm film, which in itself impacted on quality enough that it never captured the attention of serious users. A lot of “innovation” in film had failed on exactly the same point— think the 126 or 110 formats, or Kodak’s disc-format camera. Reduced negative sizes did not deliver comparable, or even adequate quality prints.APS came with some novelty features however. APS film cassettes recorded camera data which could be used in photo processing, or even printed on the back of the print. APS film cassettes had no leader, and automatically threaded the film through the film transport mechanism of the camera. When the negatives had been processed, they were actually returned to the film cassette for safekeeping, and the prints indexed with a serial number that corresponded with the cassette and frame number for re-printing.Canon, Minolta and Nikon all created new families of lightweight, compact SLR cameras to cater for the new format, sometimes including smaller, lighter lenses. Most manufacturers, like Canon and Nikon, produced relatively conventional scaled-down SLR cameras, as well as smaller, lightweight ‘novelty’ cameras, and some pocket, point-and-shoot models as well. There was no shortage of hardware options to support the new format.The APS format had all the hallmarks of a category breakthrough, but the cameras were neither functional or rugged enough to engage serious photographers, or novel enough to attract new customers to photography. APS cameras predominantly found favour with point-and-shoot customers who appreciate their compactness and light weight.The bigger issue of course was that digital cameras had started to capture mindshare.Investing in film at this point must have seemed like a regretful spend. Nikon ceased production of their Pronea in 2000, Canon stopped production of their EOS IX in 2001, Kodak stopped making even simple APS cameras in 2004, and both Fuji and Kodak discontinued APS film production in 2011.Meanwhile, Kodak had well and truly exploited their proven DCS 200 digital architecture. After four years in market, a lot had been learned, and it was time for an overhaul.Kodak engineers decided that new base architecture would be based on CCD sensors as before, although brand-new sensor designs and materials improved the colour balance, and a PowerPC chip was added to handle JPEG processing on the fly. The bulky and unpopular SCSI interface made way for the new, faster and more compact IEE 1394 ‘FireWire’ standard connection. Other changes included a colour LCD display with a new graphic menu.First cameras to adopt the new architecture were Kodak DCS 5XX and Canon EOS DXXX models. Canon supplied modified EOS 1N bodies with the film transport mechanism removed, and both Canon and Kodak marketed their respective models. The 2-megapixel Kodak DCS 520 and Canon EOS D2000 were identical, for example, as were the 6-megapixel DCS560 and Canon EOS D6000 models. Kodak launched the DCS 520 at the annual PMA show in New Orleans in February 1998. If the price of digital technology was falling, the US$14,995 list price of the DCS520 was still well beyond the reach of the mass market.Also in 1998 Kodak launched the DCS 315. Based on Nikon’s smaller, lighter Pronea APS-format film camera, the DCS 315 was a 1.5 megapixel machine that was the first digital camera to feature an on-board LCD image display, and built-in JPEG image processing. Like other DCS models, the 315 was based on a simple substitution of the Pronea camera back for the Kodak module, which more than doubled the bulk of the original Pronea. The Pronea was the functional equivalent of Nikon’s F70 camera, intended for a different price point in the market, but the DCS 315 still retailed for US$4,995 on release. The DCS 330, released the following year, featured 3 megapixels, but did not support JPEG compression.The DCS 315 and DCS 330 deserve mention now only because they were the forerunners of the modern APS-C format digital cameras. Nikon, Canon, Fuji and most others manufacturers have long produced lightweight digital SLR cameras that take advantage of smaller CMOS sensors, in the same way that the Nexia, Pronea and EOS IX took advantage of the APS format. While these crop-sensor cameras lack the wide-angle or low-light versatility of the full-frame cameras like Nikon’s D5 or the Canon 1D Mk X, their light weight and smaller profile found favour with a new market of amateur photographers.At the 1999 PMA exhibition in Las Vegas, Kodak launched their all-new DCS 620 camera.For the first time, the DCS 620 was a properly integrated, all-in-one digital camera, based this time on Nikon’s F5 film camera. Nikon supplied an F5 camera body adapted to Kodak’s design, and the electronics were fitted at Kodak’s Rochester, N.Y, facility. Already a staple of the press and professional markets, the rugged and sophisticated F5 gave Kodak’s digital cameras a new legitimacy. Kodak even promoted the DCS 6 Series as the, “Affordable, high-performance NIKON F5 SLR.”It seems likely that Kodak rushed their DCS 620 to market to try and capitalise on what demand premium they could, before Nikon and Canon, with their obvious cost advantages, entered the market on their own. It wouldn’t have taken a crystal ball to see that coming. It can’t have escaped Nikon's attention, for instance, that their F5 could be bought retail for US$1,850 while the DCS 620 was US$14,995.In a similar vein, on the 31st of January 2000, Fuji announced their FinePix S1 Pro DSLR.The FinePix was based on Nikon’s F60/N60 film camera body, and featured Fuji’s own CCD sensor that cleverly extrapolated a 6-megapixel image from a 3.4-megapixel CCD sensor. The FinePix Pro was rated with sensitivity from ASA 320—1600, and produced JPEG or 8-bit TIFF files in-camera.The execution of the FinePix also looked rushed. It needed no less than 3 battery types — two CR123A Lithium batteries to power the camera, 4 x AA cells to power the digital electronics, and a CR2025 button cell to maintain camera settings like date and time.Users rated the FinePix for it’s natural results, but ultimately it seems that Fuji expected to sell on price. Unlike any of the other digital SLRs on the market at that point, the FinePix Pro was unashamedly plastic. The first announcements pegged the price at US$4,000, but on launch it was US$3,500 and within months of launch could be bought for US$3,000.Few people doubted that Nikon would have their own digital camera in market, and it had become a question of when, not if. At the 1999 PMA exhibition, Nikon finally offered a glimpse of the future, offering a non-working mock-up of the camera that would become the D1. The machine was locked in a glass display case, alongside F5 and F100 models, with whom it shared an obvious and reassuring familial resemblance.Nikon representatives on the exhibition stand were giving nothing away with regard to the specification of the final product, or a delivery date, but the intention could not have been more clear. Nikon would soon have their own, likely more affordable, ‘digital F5’ in market in the near future. Nikon said that it would continue to honour it’s agreements with Kodak, but the announcement of the Nikon D1 effectively stalled Kodak’s market.If Nikon’s PMA exhibit had just the one talking point, Kodak’s exhibition stand was a little busier. Aside from the DCS 620, Kodak seemed intent on taking the fight to Fuji, and exhibited their RFS 3570 film scanner, a digital multi-printer production system and the second-generation Professional LED II Production System. Kodak also demonstrated some increasingly mature software products. such as ‘Kodak Portraits & More.’Finally however, Nikon ended all speculation. On the 31st of August 1999, at the annual Seybold desktop publishing conference in San Francisco, Nikon unveiled details of their much-anticipated D1. Offering 2.74-megapixels, 50 milliseconds shutter latency, a 4.5 frame/second shooting rate, and a 21-frame buffer, the D1 appeared to be a mature camera, usefully differentiated from it’s competition. First deliveries of the new camera were anticipated to be in September.Elsewhere, an event so inconspicuous it likely went unnoticed, actually marked the beginning of a trend that would eventually transform all photography forever.Friends Kamran Mohsenin and Lisa Gansky decided that digital photography had the potential to change the way that people could store, view, edit, share and print their photos. They launched their new, on-line service, called Ofoto in June 1999.Digital users could upload their photos directly, using Ofoto’s free software, while film users could mail in their rolls of film and have them processed, scanned and uploaded for just US$3.95 per roll. Users could edit their photos, or customise them with Ofoto’s digital frames and cards. Conventional silver-halide photographic prints were available for anything from US$0.50 to US$20 each, depending on print size, and CD-ROMs were available for US$10 each. The service was free, provided users made at least one purchased every 12 months.Ofoto piqued the interest of investors, raising US$16 million in venture capital in 2000, and then US$41 million in another round of funding, before being acquired by Kodak in April 2001. By that point, Ofoto had 1.2 million registered members and employed 121 people. An independent analysis of on-line photo services by research company ARS Inc. rated Ofoto’s service best in terms off ease of use, service and price competitiveness. Ofoto was even endorsed by Microsoft, being one of three photo processing services bundled with WindowsXP.At least two of Ofoto’s competitors were other Kodak initiatives, such as Kodak-sponsored "You've Got Pictures,” offered via America OnLine, Kodak PhotoNet Online, and the Kodak Picture Center online at CVS.com. According to Neilsen research, these sites were averaging a total of 782,000 unique visitors in the three months leading up to the Ofoto acquisition.In a press release, Willy Shih, president of Kodak's Digital and Applied Imaging unit, said, “The acquisition enhances our leadership in the growing market for online photo services. By combining Kodak's and Ofoto's technology, marketing and distribution assets, we will be able to deliver the most comprehensive, easy-to-use online photography services to customers and consumers. This will accelerate Kodak's growth and drive more rapid adoption of online photography. This move will result in greater speed to market for new features and reinforce Kodak's position as the market leader.”Kodak re-branded the service 'Kodak Gallery,’ by 2003 had expanded the service to the United Kingdom, and added Kodak’s Perfect Touch image optimisation software to the options available to users.Kodak also appeared to realise the connection between connectivity and their digital services, and in 2005 launched the WiFi-enabled EasyShare One camera, although the point-and-shoot model didn’t last long in Kodak’s line-up.Ofoto and it’s peers were simply a little ahead of their time. Today of course there are more photographs created, edited and distributed on-line than by any other means. Smartphones and increasingly also cameras are being network-enabled, able to capture, edit and upload photos virtually in real-time.Following Kodak’s divestiture in 2012, it’s on-line services ended up being a part of Shutterfly.Elsewhere too, Kodak was doubling down on digital. Intending to get out of the professional market at some point, Kodak was not yet ready to give up. Late in 1999, the DCS 5 and 6 Series received a firmware upgrade that made more intuitive sense of the user interface. (Kodak would continue issuing firmware updates for their DCS range until they exited the SLR business in 2005).By 2001, the DCS 6XX series was altogether superseded by the 7-Series. The DCS 7-series was effectively Kodak’s third generation of digital technology. The entire architecture had been optimised to get the sensor closer to the circuitry, lowering the signal-to-noise ratio and increasing the camera’s speed and sensitivity to light. A Texas Instruments digital signal processor had been added to complement the upgraded 75 MHz PowerPC chip, and dual PCI card slots supported a variety of storage options. The 7-Series was supposed to support JPEG compression, but was finally shipped with only RAW format support.The DCS 720 was a 2-megapixel model, but the real breakthrough was the DCS 760, which featured 6-megapixels, and listed at just US$7,995. The 7-Series wasn’t the only news. Kodak shipped it’s brand-new Professional DCS software, offering photographers much greater flexibility and control over their raw images. The DCS 760s earned an enviable reputation for it’s reliability and image quality, and second-hand DCS760s still trade at reasonable values on the internet.To some extent Kodak seemed to be playing to it’s heritage, offering a ‘photographic system’ — the camera, software, and it’s legacy network of processing and printing. The DCS 760 finally put digital photography within reach of a whole new market segment, and more importantly, was much closer to the price point that Nikon was expected to hit when their new D1 finally hit the market.While Kodak’s digital technology had been revolutionary, the key to great images was still actually the camera, in which Kodak had literally no IP or expertise. Adapting Canon and Nikon models had been fast and simple to do. Kodak was able to leverage the installed base of lenses and accessories for these cameras, and address the professional market most likely to value their digital technology.No doubt Nikon and Canon both learned from their exposure to Kodak’s technology, but the honeymoon couldn’t last forever. The drive to digital was absorbing capital in Nikon and Canon’s traditional customer base. Every camera Canon or Nikon sold to Kodak, was absorbing perhaps 7-10 times as much revenue from their own customers. Ultimately both Nikon and Canon would have to plug the leak in their market with digital cameras of their own.The Nikon D1 and Canon 1D were intended to be those cameras, but Kodak was proving to be a determined competitor.In September 2002 at Germany’s Photokina exhibition in Cologne, Kodak debuted the DCS Pro 14n camera. At 13.89-megapixels, the Pro 14n was the highest-resolution digital camera available to that point, and only the third camera ever to offer a full-frame 24 x 36mm sensor (after Canon’s 1Ds and an unsuccessful Contax camera).Based on Nikon’s N80 camera, the Pro 14n was a departure from all of Kodak’s previous digital cameras in that it featured a CMOS sensor, developed and manufactured exclusively for Kodak by the Belgian firm FillFactory. The Pro 14n offered a 2-frame/second exposure rate, an 8-shot burst (later upgraded to 18 shots) and could transfer data via it's Firewire interface at 12 Mb/ps.Kodak also finally offered qualified on-board support for JPEG compression. The issue with JPEG compression is that it achieves reduced file sizes at the expense of image data. That in itself is not a problem, but it destroys the latitude available for adjustment of the images in post-processing. Kodak offered an extended-range (ERI) version of JPEG that preserved a full two stops of latitude in exposure and colour control. From the Kodak press release, “The ERI-JPEG format provides professional photographers ease-of-use of JPEG files with the image quality and colour/exposure control of Kodak's highly regarded DCR format raw camera files, to create the best quality images.” The intent was clear — Kodak was well aware of the issues associated with JPEG files, but also anxious to offer some of the advantages of image compression.Kodak had also seized on the flexibility of it’s software-based digital architecture. “Because the features of the DCS Pro 14n are based on Kodak Professional firmware and not hard-wired within the camera, the camera can be enhanced and easily upgraded with free firmware downloads from Kodak Professional. Free firmware upgrades essentially give photographers a "new" camera whereas other manufacturers require the purchase of an entirely new camera system to receive the latest enhancements.” Previous upgrades had added menus, additional languages and so on to the user interface of the DCS 5, 6 and 7-Series cameras.The DCS Pro 14n was a game-changer. Kodak led the market on innovation — and finally also, on price. The Pro 14n debuted at US$5,000, it’s nearest competition being Canon’s 11-megapixel 1Ds that launched at US$8,995. If the standard N80 was a modest camera, lacking the speed, exposure and focus options of the F5, there was nothing that could touch the DCS Pro14n.By 2001 there were reportedly 15 million digital cameras in America, and in 2003, sales of digital cameras finally outstripped film cameras. The traditional film-and-paper photographic industry generally is thought to have peaked at about this time. In September 2003, Kodak announced a new strategy, intended to “broaden our digital presence in consumer, commercial and healthcare markets. These three ‘pillars’ represent the foundation of our business, and are areas where Kodak already has a base from which to grow. We also announced we would select future business opportunities, notably in the display and inkjet markets, that build on our core competencies and our solid base of intellectual property.”By 2004 the Pro14n had been superseded by the Pro SLRn, still based on the Nikon N80, but with much improved low-light sensitivity boosted all the way up to ISO 1,600, and exposures up to 60 seconds possible. The really good news for Pro14n owners was that their cameras, for US$1,495, could be upgraded at Kodak to SLRn spec, losing only the new power management and some of the processing speed of the new SLRn.The key to the SLRn was a re-designed sensor, with a dye-based colour filter rather than the dichroic types common to other sensors. The change helped to deal with the chromatic aberrations that were sometimes visible, with particularly wide-angle lenses.Kodak’s relationship with Canon seems to have soured following the release of the EOS 1D. Canon’s original contract with Kodak is rumoured to have been exclusive, and actually precluded Canon from developing their own DSLRs. Whatever the truth of that, Kodak’s Canon-compatible equivalent of the Pro SLRn, called the SLRc, was based on Sigma’s SD9 camera, and launched in 2004.Kodak’s Pro SLR cameras received rave reviews. The only real criticisms concerned the bulk of the digital machines, and the control layout (particularly the SLRc, which was not as familiar to Canon users as the layout of the N80 was to Nikon’s customers). It would be 2007 before Nikon would have a full-frame camera in the market, and so the Pro 14n and SLR models had been enthusiastically received by Nikon owners. In one review, CNET noted, “Superb resolution; 35mm-size sensor obviates focal-length conversions; significantly improved high-ISO performance; improved battery life; powerful software and user-installable firmware.” Their conclusion; “this dSLR offers outstanding resolution to portrait, school, commercial, and architectural photographers who own Nikon F-mount lenses.” Layout issues aside, the image quality of the SLR/c also compared favourably with Canon’s more expensive 11-megapixel 1Ds.By the third quarter of 2005, Kodak’s digital products earned more money than it’s film products for the first time. By then however, on May 31st, Kodak had already announced that it would cease manufacture of it’s Pro digital cameras.It’s an interesting decision. Having created a competitive product, and at a price that seemed well received in the market and which promised some real sales volumes, it seems like a curious time to pull the pin. The Pro SLR range were ‘halo’ products that validated Kodak’s leadership in digital technology. It would be another 2 years, for example, before Nikon had a full-frame sensor in market, with their D3 model — and even that was only a 12.2-megapixel machine. It looks now like a reaction to Kodak’s first-ever losses.There were a number of factors in play however.For almost 20 years, Kodak had developed and manufactured it’s own CCD sensors, but by the time Kodak started development of the DCS Pro range, it was clear that the next ‘leap’ in performance would need to be based on CMOS technology. While Kodak led the design of the sensor for the DCS 14n, manufacturing it’s own CMOS sensors would require a quantum leap in chip manufacturing technology that Kodak was not prepared to make. More pixels means finer manufacturing tolerances and bigger die sizes, and a lot of semiconductor companies had already failed to deliver CMOS technology reliably in volume. Kodak partnered with FillFactory and IBM to manufacture CMOS sensors to it’s designs.It wasn’t a foregone conclusion that Kodak would need to manufacture their own sensors to remain competitive. Nikon for example, has only ever made a few of their own sensors, typically relying instead on Sony sensors.Neither was it necessarily a deciding factor that Kodak didn’t make their own cameras. Traditionally, some of Kodak’s most famous 35mm cameras, like their Retina and Retinette, were assembled in Germany, with key elements such as shutters and lenses sourced from third parties. Nikon’s camera bodies were a relatively small part of the overall price of a digital camera. Just $400 over the counter would get you an N80, when the DCS Pro SLR sold for $5,000, although Nikon also manufactured the specially adapted magnesium chassis that Kodak needed for it’s electronic components. Sigma started making cameras primarily to sell their lenses, and third-party manufacturers such as Seiko and Copal already manufactured the key shutter mechanisms for other manufacturers.With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, pulling the pin on the Pro SLR range seems premature, but Kodak’s heritage is in the mass consumer market. The high-end professional market is a very small part of the overall photographic market, and in the digital age increasingly less likely to print anything. The real silver was buried in the mass market, and Kodak’s decision to support it’s retail distribution network with affordable cameras should have supported it’s processing chemistry and photographic paper business.Far from ignoring digital technology, Kodak seemed intent on continuing to lead. An “Image Sensor Solutions Group” was created to concentrate on sensor development, manufacture and supply to the OEM market. Kodak acquired the imaging business of National Semiconductor, and then also engaged IBM in a partnership to build CMOS sensors.Kodak made a case for it’s CMOS sensors with a unique design, called “Pixelux.” In these sensors, Kodak introduced a fourth “transfer gate” transistor to the circuit design, making it possible to electrically isolate the actual photo-sensing diode, and enable the processor to sample each pixel more than once. It also enabled the processor to read each pixel separately, or to read two or four pixels at a time. This technology gave Kodak’s sensors better sensitivity and improved colour in low-light situations that are particularly important to consumers.By 2005, the joint venture was starting to bear fruit. The first new KAC-3100 and KAC-5000 CMOS sensors were being manufactured at IBM’s Burlington, VT, chip plant. Those were miniature 3 and 5-megapixel sensors, focussed on the consumer video and smart device market, but Kodak was quoting US$15 on quantities of 1,000 chips.The sensor is only half the story with CMOS technology however. A CMOS sensor requires an image processor, and here again, Kodak partnered with Texas Instruments to deliver their OMAP 2 image processors. “Kodak has a strong reputation for delivering high quality digital imaging devices, and we are excited that a reference design is now available that combines Kodak's new CMOS image sensors with TI's industry-leading OMAP processors," said Avner Goren, marketing director of TI's Cellular Systems Business. “With this powerful combination, manufacturers will be able to bring new features and capabilities to cell phones as we see the imaging, communications and the electronic markets converge.”The strategy appeared to be paying dividends when in 2006 Kodak reached an agreement with Motorola to supply the imaging technology for Motorola’s next generation of mobile pones. Taiwan semiconductor also licensed Kodak’s CMOS sensor design.In spite of Kodak’s efforts to have the Pixelux CMOS sensors adopted by other manufacturers, the first Pixelux-based product reached the consumer in July 2007, when Kodak rolled out the first-ever sub-US$100 CMOS digital camera. The new EasyShare 513 featured 5-megapixel resolution, a 3x optical zoom lens, and a 2.4-inch LCD screen. Novel for the time, the EasyShare 513 also offered a digital image stabilisation feature, intended to reduce image blur caused by camera movement. Another novel feature for the time was audio-video capture.With the EasyShare 513, Kodak had really taken digital technology full-circle, from a nascent lab experiment, through specialised products, to mass-market consumer solution, in just 30 years. Kodak also focussed on it’s mass-market ‘EasyShare’ digital cameras, and even manufactured a range of digital cameras for Canon.Kodak's CCD sensor business was also still growing, but only slowly. Kodak persevered with development and manufacture of CCD sensors. Aside from numerous industrial and process applications, Olympus’ digital cameras featured Kodak’s CCD sensors. The legendary Leica M8 and M9 cameras both carried Kodak CCD sensors. The Leaf and PhaseOne medium-format digital cameras both featured Kodak CCD sensors, as did the Pentax 645D. These were all somewhat exclusive products however, and the CCD sensor business was fast becoming marginalised by the relative speed and lower cost of CMOS devices.In November 2005, Nikon debuted their D200 model, built around a 10.2-megapixel Sony sensor, which would prove to be Nikon’s last CCD camera.The impact of digital photography was coming sharply into focus against a background of turbulent times in the photographic industry. Polaroid was declared insolvent in 2001, and then again in 2008. Konica and Minolta merged in 2003. Agfa sold it’s photography business in a management buy-out in 2004, which was then forced to file for bankruptcy in 2005. Kyocera announced that it would stop making cameras that year, including their Konica and Contax brands, hoping to salvage something from their photography businesses when Konica-Minolta announced a deal to jointly develop digital cameras with Sony.Kodak also suffered it’s first-ever losses in 2005. It was the beginning of a tide of red ink. As fast as the company retrenched it’s International operations, and exited some of it’s less strategic businesses such as inkjet printers, revenues continue to decline.The intellectual capital of the digital era was not chemistry, but silicon manufacturing techniques. After working for years to develop their own CCD sensors, Sony had developed a huge business supplying CMOS sensors to other manufacturers, along with a nice line in SLR, mirrorless still and video cameras. Samsung and Panasonic also had their own sensors and drove hard for volume to recoup their costs. Kodak still had great brand identity, and was working hard to complement their products with services, on-line and at retail, but digital photography was generating nothing like revenue or margins associated with the heyday of the film industry.Like most businesses invested in research and technology, writing patent applications had been a full-time business at Kodak. The current stock ran to more than 11,000 patents, of which about 1,000 patents related to digital photography. A lot of those patents were preliminary patents, filed in the early stages of sensor and camera development, and they were very broad. Contemporary estimates assumed that 85% of digital cameras were using some of Kodak’s patents. Companies such as Olympus, LG, Sharp, Matsushita Electric (Panasonic), Motorola, Samsung, Sanyo, Sony and Sony Ericsson all licensed Kodak’s patents.Pentax had used Kodak patents and technology, prior to being taken over by Ricoh, and was one of a number of companies that Kodak began suing to assert it’s rights. Ricoh ended up shelling out US$75.8 million to settle Kodak’s claims, the victory helping to seal the validity of Kodak’s patent rights. In January 2012 Apple filed suit against Fuji alleging infringement of five of it’s patents after the Japanese had failed to reach agreement, and at the same time filed suit against smartphone maker HTC. At about the same time, Apple reluctantly entered into a license agreement for five Kodak patents covering aspects of Apple’s iPad 2, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, and the iPod touch (4th generation) products.It had started to look like the portfolio would earn more through licensing that it would realise through a sale. Between 2003 and 2011 Kodak had earned Kodak US$3 billion in patent licensing deals and settlements, but by the end of 2012 the fate of Kodak and it’s patent portfolio was in the hands of it’s bankers.In 1997 Kodak’s share price had hit an all-time high of US$94/share, but by 2004 the company was removed from the Dow Jones Index when it’s shared had plummeted to US$25.38. Restructuring and divestments meant the company was shedding staff, expenses and revenue. The payroll that had once numbered more than 145,300 employees, was now down around 13,100 people, but the payroll wasn’t shrinking as fast as revenue. Kodak was profitable only once between 2004 and 2012. By January 2012 Kodak stock had become a “penny dreadful,” selling for just US$0.36¢/share. Time had finally run out.Kodak finally filed for Chapter 11 protection on the 18th of January, 2012.By any measure, this was a significant insolvency, involving about US$6.75 billion in debt, and by Kodak’s estimates, about US$5.1 billion in assets. There was a relatively small unfunded liability (US$700million) in the company’s American 401K pension plan, but the biggest creditor was the UK pension scheme, which was unfunded to the tune of about US$2.8 billion.Under the terms of it’s insolvency, Citigroup advanced Kodak a loan of US$950 million to enable the company to continue to operate, while it restructured it’s business.Among the conditions of that loan was that Kodak arrange the sale of it’s patent portfolio. An independent assessment, based on discounted cashflow analysis of licensing revenues, valued Kodak’s patent portfolio at about US$2.6 billion. As the business continued to tank, the patent portfolio started to look like one of the company’s few remaining assets.The fatal blow came just days before the patent auction was due to commence.The US International Trade Commission did an about-face and ruled against Kodak in a patent infringement case that the company had brought against Apple and RIM. The patent, known as “218” covered a method of capturing still images while previewing motion. The ruling was right out of left-field. The same patent had already been re-examined more than once, and had also been licensed by at least LG and Samsung (reportedly for almost US$1 billion). While licensing deals are typically irrevocable, the new USITC ruling undermined the value of the balance of Kodak’s portfolio, and there was simply no time, or money, to sort it out.Potential bidders had organised themselves into two camps: Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and Facebook squared off against a consortium that included Amazon, Google, HTC, Samsung, and the photo-printing website Shutterfly. The problem was that while Kodak was leading the negotiations, the company no longer had any equity. Both parties knew the the company had lost it’s autonomy to it’s lenders, who simply needed to cover their loan exposure.Naturally, neither consortium wanted to pay a cent more than necessary to secure the patents they needed, and neither did any of the parties need Kodak’s entire treasure trove of digital patents. Kodak put the portfolio up for auction on the 8th of August 2012, and had expected to announce a winner on August 20th, but the low-ball bids came as a surprise. The two consortiums are believed to have opened their bidding at around the US$150 - US$250 million mark. Kodak delayed the announcement until the 30th of August, then the 7th of September, and then again until the 19th of September, but this was clearly a buyers’ market, and Kodak no longer had any leverage. The court-sanctioned delays only made the company’s creditors more anxious.Checkmate finally came when the two consortiums joined forces, and added Fuji, Huawei and RIM to their ranks in the process. Everyone who might have been interested in Kodak’s patent portfolio was now effectively represented by a single bid, and inevitably, a deal was finally struck. In December 2012 Kodak announced that an expanded patent portfolio — not just the 1,100 digital photography patents — had been sold to the consortium for US$527 million. The consortium had negotiated to pay just enough to force Kodak to complete the sale, but the low-ball bid meant that Kodak would need to dig even deeper and realise additional assets.The Personal Imaging and Document Imaging businesses were sold to the British pension plan (knows as KPP) which settled the US$2.8 billion claim against Kodak and produced another US$650 million in cash and non-cash consideration. That business became Kodak Alaris.Kodak’s on-line services were sold to Shutterfly for US$23.8 million. IMAX acquired Kodak’s patents for laser projection. Kodak had to unravel a US$74 million sponsorship deal for naming rights at the Academy awards venue — now known as the Dolby Theatre. The gelatine business was sold off. The Japanese Brother company bought some of Kodak’s imaging assets.The disappointing result from the patent auction obviously contributed to a shortfall however, and unsecured creditors shared only 4-5% of the US$3.25 billion they were owed.The reorganisation plan was filed with the Bankruptcy Court in New York on 30 April 2013, and was formally approved on the 20th of August, 2013. In a press release, chief executive Antonio Perez said, “We have emerged as a technology company serving imaging for business markets - including packaging, functional printing, graphic communications and professional services. We have been revitalised by our transformation and restructured to become a formidable competitor - leaner, with a strong capital structure, a healthy balance sheet, and the industry's best technology.”It’s tempting to look for simple answers to even the most complex situations, but the evidence doesn’t support some of the most common perceptions. While it’s certainly true that Kodak management may have struggled to understand the impact of digital, the fact remains that Kodak, almost in spite of itself, demonstrably led the development of digital imaging, all the way through not just one, but two generations of sensor technology.The other factor that can’t be denied is that Kodak’s technology represented the pinnacle of CCD sensor technology. Kodak’s sensors were buried deep within the most prestigious products, such as cameras from Leica, Olympus, Pentax and PhaseOne, and the Kodak-designed sensors in the company’s own Pro SLR range were considered industry leading.Some of the markets that Kodak had once practically owned, and which made Kodak one of the World’s most recognised brands, simply don’t exist today. Traditional silver halide photography, although it still exists and is even seeing a small resurgence, is a tiny proportion of today’s photography market.Unprecedented collusion between Kodak’s competitors robbed the company of the better part of the value of it’s research and development. With practically all of Kodak’s potential licensees in a single consortium, determined to take advantage of the company’s insolvency, there was no chance for the beleaguered company to redeem almost any of the value of it’s research.Kodak retained the same rights to it’s intellectual property as the successful bidders in the insolvency auction, and therefore still has one of the richest caches of intellectual capital of any company. The new management is working hard to capitalise on innovation that Kodak never originally delivered to market, and interestingly is still a US$2 billion business, focussed primarily on printing and packaging, and some legacy photographic opportunities, such as movie film stock, which will continue to be in demand for some time yet.At Rochester, N.Y., Kodak had created their own “River Rouge” — a vertically integrated plant that turned wood, cellulose, gelatin, silver and other chemicals, into photographic film, paper and chemistry. By late 2013, most of that complex was surplus to even Kodak’s requirements, and some of the oldest buildings had to be demolished. Today, the area is known as Eastman Business Park, and still comprises about 1.5 million sq.metres (16 million sq.ft) of manufacturing, distribution and office space, spread over a 485 hectare (1,200 acre) campus area, housing more than 60 companies, employing more than 6,600 staff — along with what remains of Kodak.More recently still, Kodak has pioneered the use of blockchain technology to secure digital photographs, essentially doing for photographers and the photographic industry what Apple’s Digital Rights Management technology did for the recording industry. The Kodak systems will allow photographers to register work that they can license and then receive payment. Securing the property rights of photographers and graphic artists everywhere is a curious twist given Kodak’s history, but the company may yet feature prominently in the future of commercial imaging.

Maybe this will help, mind you it’s lengthy: This info is from the site: Ammunition Regulation: State by State | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun ViolenceAmmunition Regulation: State by StateAmmunition Regulation in AlabamaLast updatedNovember 8, 2019.Alabama law prohibits the possession or sale of brass or steel teflon-coated handgun ammunition or ammunition of like kind designed to penetrate bullet-proof vests. However, this prohibition does not apply to the possession or sale of teflon-coated lead or brass ammunition designed to expand upon contact.1Alabama does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers; orProhibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in AlaskaLast updatedNovember 1, 2019.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.In Alaska, a state parole board may require as a condition of special medical, discretionary, or mandatory parole that a prisoner released on parole not possess or control firearm ammunition.1Alaska does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Prohibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply;Prohibit armor-piercing ammunition, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.Ammunition Regulation in ArizonaLast updatedOctober 16, 2018.Arizona law generally prohibits anyone from giving or selling ammunition to a person under age 18 without written consent of the minor’s parent or legal guardian.1Arizona does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Prohibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply; orProhibit armor-piercing and other unreasonably dangerous ammunition, although federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.See our Ammunition Regulation Policy Summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in ArkansasLast updatedOctober 9, 2019.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Arkansas law does not, among other things:Prohibit individuals ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition;Require a license for the possession of ammunition; orRequire a license to sell ammunition.Ammunition Regulation in CaliforniaLast updatedOctober 10, 2018.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.California regulates the following aspects of ammunition, as described below:Sales and transfers of ammunition;Persons prohibited from possessing ammunition;Minimum age to possess ammunition;Ammunition at gun shows; andCertain kinds of unreasonably dangerous ammunition.California also prohibits carrying ammunition onto school grounds, subject to certain limited exceptions.1(1) Sales and Transfers of AmmunitionIn 2016, California voters passed Proposition 63, which will comprehensively regulate ammunition sales in the state once its various reforms become effective between 2017 and 2019.Previously, California had adopted a groundbreaking 2009 law (AB 962) that sought to comprehensively regulate the sale of handgun ammunition by, among other things,regulating mail-order shipments of handgun ammunition and by requiring retail sellers of handgun ammunition to obtain a business license from DOJ and to keep records of their handgun ammunition sales. However, implementation of AB 962 was delayed due to litigation surrounding the definition of “handgun ammunition.”2Proposition 63 will supersede AB 962 and will apply to all ammunition sales. More specifically:Beginning January 1, 2018, individuals who sell more than 500 rounds of ammunition in any month will be required to obtain an annual state-issued business license3 and will be required to conduct ammunition sales at specified business locations or gun shows.4 The California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) will start accepting applications for ammunition vendor business licenses on July 1, 2017.5DOJ will issue ammunition vendor licenses to individuals who provide specified documentation, including a certificate of eligibility verifying that they passed a background check.6 Individuals who are already licensed as firearms dealers by DOJ would automatically be deemed licensed ammunition vendors, provided that they comply with other legal obligations placed on ammunition sellers.7Once licensed, ammunition vendors will be required to report the loss or theft of any ammunition from their inventory to law enforcement,8 and to obtain a certificate of eligibility from employees who handle or sell ammunition, verifying that they passed a background check.9Beginning January 1, 2018, ammunition sales will generally have to be conducted by or processed through licensed vendors.10 Sales of ammunition by unlicensed sellers would have to be processed through a licensed ammunition vendor, in a manner similar to private party firearms transactions,11 and ammunition obtained over the Internet or from out of state would have to be initially shipped to a licensed ammunition vendor for physical delivery to the purchaser pursuant to a background check.12Beginning July 1, 2019, licensed ammunition vendors will be required to record, maintain, and report to DOJ records of ammunition sales, in a manner similar to dealer’s records of sales (DROS) for firearms purchases.13 Proposition 63 will require that these records be kept confidential except for use by law enforcement for law enforcement purposes.14 DOJ will be required to maintain a database of ammunition sale records, similar to the DROS database for firearms.15Beginning July 1, 2019, a licensed ammunition vendor will generally be prohibited from selling or transferring ammunition until first conducting a background check to verify that the person receiving the ammunition is legally eligible.16 If the vendor is a licensed firearms dealer, he or she can also sell ammunition in the same transaction as a firearm with only the firearm background check required.17Proposition 63 will still authorize people to sell or share ammunition with their spouses, domestic partners, parents, grandparents, children, and grandchildren without going through a licensed vendor.18 It will also authorize people to freely share (but not sell) ammunition in person with friends and shooting partners, unless they have reason to believe that the ammunition would be illegally provided to a criminal or illegal user.19Proposition 63 will also allow people to buy ammunition at a shooting range without undergoing a background check and without a sale record as long as they keep that ammunition inside the facility; if they want to bring ammunition to or from the facility, they could bring their own ammunition from home or undergo a background check at the shooting range.20California currently prohibits people from supplying ammunition to any person they know or reasonably should know is prohibited from possessing ammunition.21Prop 63 will also make it illegal for a person to supply ammunition to a straw purchaser with knowledge or cause to believe that the straw purchaser would subsequently provide that ammunition to a prohibited person.22See Persons Prohibited from Possessing Ammunition below.(2) Persons Prohibited from Possessing AmmunitionCalifornia prohibits any person from owning, possessing, or having under his or her custody or control any ammunition or reloaded ammunition if the person falls into any of the categories of persons who are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms under state law.23In addition, a person subject to an injunction as a member of a criminal street gang may not own, possess or have any ammunition under his or her custody or control.24(3) Minimum Age to Possess AmmunitionCalifornia prohibits the possession of live ammunition by persons under age 18, with certain enumerated exceptions.25Sellers of ammunition are prohibited from selling any ammunition to a person under 18 years of age and may not sell handgun ammunition to a person under 21 years of age.26However, a seller, agent or employee of a seller may avoid prosecution for a violation of this law by demonstrating that the minor presented identification indicating that he or she was actually old enough to make the purchase, and that the seller, agent or employee acted in reasonable reliance on this identification.27(4) Ammunition at Gun ShowsCalifornia prohibits ammunition from being displayed at gun shows except in closed containers, unless the seller is showing the ammunition to a prospective buyer.28In addition, no person at a gun show in California, other than security personnel or sworn peace officers, can possess at the same time both a firearm and ammunition that is designed to be fired in the firearm. Vendors selling such items at the show are exempt.29(5) Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionCalifornia bans the manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, or knowing possession or transportation of handgun ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor.30This ban applies to any ammunition (except a shotgun shell or ammunition primarily designed for use in rifles) that is designed primarily to penetrate a body vest or body shield, either by virtue of its shape, cross-sectional density, or coating, or because it has a projectile or projectile core constructed entirely of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium, or any equivalent material of similar density or hardness. KTW ammunition, among others, is subject to this ban.31California also prohibits the possession, sale, offer for sale, or knowing transportation of a “destructive device,” defined to include “[a]ny projectile containing any explosive or incendiary material” or any other chemical substance including, but not limited to, that commonly known as tracer or incendiary ammunition (except tracer ammunition manufactured for use in shotguns), and any “explosive missile.”32The state provides for the limited issuance of permits to possess or transport any destructive device, issued at the discretion of the California Department of Justice.33California prohibits the manufacture, importation, keeping or offering for sale, transfer or possession of any “flechette dart” (dart capable of being fired from a firearm, that measures approximately one inch in length, with tail fins that take up approximately five-sixteenths of an inch of the body) or bullet that contains an explosive agent.34In addition, California generally prohibits any person, firm or corporation from selling, offering for sale, possessing or knowingly transporting any fixed ammunition greater than .60 caliber. ((Cal. Penal Code § 18735.)Ammunition Regulation in ColoradoLast updatedNovember 8, 2019.The provisions of Colorado law that prohibit domestic abusers from possessing firearms apply to ammunition, as well. For further details, see Domestic Violence and Firearms in Colorado.Colorado does not regulate ammunition in any other way.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in ConnecticutLast updatedOctober 16, 2018.Effective October 1, 2013, Connecticut prohibits the sale of ammunition or an ammunition magazine to any buyer unless the prospective ammunition purchaser:Has a handgun carry permit, gun sales permit, or long gun or handgun eligibility certificate, and presents such a credential to the seller; orHas an ammunition certificate and presents to the seller such certificate along with a driver’s license, passport, or other valid government-issued identification that contains the person’s photograph and date of birth.1These provisions do not apply to the transfer of ammunition between federal firearms licensees, among other specific persons or entities.2Ammunition Purchaser Permitting – Ammunition CertificateUnder Connecticut law, any person who is age 18 or older may request the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection (Commissioner) to: 1) conduct a criminal history records check of such person, using the person’s name and date of birth only; and 2) if approved, issue an ammunition certificate to such person.3The ammunition certificate must be in the form prescribed by the Commissioner, and must contain an identification number and the name, address, and date of birth of the certificate holder and be signed by the holder.4The name and address of a person issued an ammunition certificate must be confidential and must not be disclosed except:To law enforcement officials acting in the performance of their duties;By the Commissioner to the extent necessary to comply with a request made for a firearms or ammunition certificate for verification that such certificate is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked; andTo the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services to carry out the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-500, requiring the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services to maintain information on commitment orders by a probate court and on voluntary commitments, and requires probate courts to maintain information regarding cases relating to persons with psychiatric disabilities.5The fee for each ammunition certificate is $35 and there is an additional fee for the criminal history records check.6An originally issued ammunition certificate expires five years after the date it becomes effective and each renewal certificate will expire five years from the date it is issued.7An ammunition certificate must be revoked by the Commissioner if any event occurs which would have disqualified the holder from being issued the certificate.8Prohibited AmmunitionConnecticut prohibits any person from knowingly distributing, transporting, importing into the state, keeping, offering, or exposing for sale, or giving any person any “armor-piercing bullet” or “incendiary .50 caliber bullet.” An “armor-piercing bullet” includes any .50 caliber bullet that is designed for the purpose of, held out by the manufacturer or distributor as, or generally recognized as having a specialized capability to penetrate armor or bulletproof glass, including, but not limited to, bullets designated as “M2 Armor-Piercing” or “AP,” “M8 Armor-Piercing Incendiary” or “API,” “M20 Armor-Piercing Incendiary Tracer” or “APIT,” “M903 Caliber .50 Saboted Light Armor Penetrator” or “SLAP,” or “M962 Saboted Light Armor Penetrator Tracer” or “SLAPT.”9Effective October 1, 2013, this definition will include any bullet that can be fired from a pistol or revolver that: 1) has projectiles or projectile cores constructed entirely, excluding the presence of trances of other substances, from tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or 2) is fully jacketed with a jacket weight of more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile, is larger than .22 caliber and designed and intended for use in a firearm; and 3) does not have projectiles whose cores are composed of soft materials such as lead or lead alloys, zinc or zinc alloys, frangible projectiles designed primarily for sporting purposes, or any other projectiles or projectile cores that the U.S. Attorney General finds to be primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes or industrial purposes or that otherwise do not constitute “armor piercing ammunition” as defined in federal law.10An “incendiary .50 caliber bullet” is defined as any .50 caliber bullet that is designed for the purpose of, held out by the manufacturer or distributor as, or generally recognized as having a specialized capability to ignite upon impact, including, but not limited to, such bullets commonly designated as “M1 Incendiary,” “M23 Incendiary,” “M8 Armor-Piercing Incendiary” or “API,” or “M20 Armor-Piercing Incendiary Tracer” or “APIT.”11Connecticut also prohibits any person from knowingly transporting or carrying a firearm loaded with an armor piercing bullet or incendiary .50 caliber bullet.12The prohibited ammunition provisions exempt:The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, police departments, the Department of Correction, or the state or U.S. military forces for use in the discharge of their official duties;An executor or administrator of an estate that includes such ammunition that is disposed of as authorized by the Probate Court; andThe transfer by bequest or intestate succession of such ammunition.13The federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition also applies.Transfer of Ammunition for Prohibited PersonsNot later than two business days after the occurrence of any event that makes a person ineligible to possess a firearm or ammunition, that person must transfer any ammunition in his or her possession to a federally licensed firearms dealer or another person eligible to possess the ammunition, or surrender the ammunition to the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection.14The prohibited possessor may, at any time up to one year after such delivery or surrender, have any ammunition transferred to any person eligible to possess such ammunition. Notification must be given in writing by such person and the transferee to the Commissioner, who must deliver the ammunition to the transferee. If, at the end of a year, the ammunition has not been transferred at the request of the prohibited person, the Commissioner must have the ammunition destroyed.15Domestic Violence Prohibitions and AmmunitionConnecticut requires the application form for civil restraining orders to include a space for an alleged victim of domestic violence to indicate whether the alleged domestic violence offender possesses ammunition.16As of October 1, 2013, domestic violence units in the Connecticut judicial system that respond to cases involving family violence are required to inform the court if a domestic violence victim indicates that a defendant possesses ammunition.17Police are allowed to seize ammunition under the same circumstances as they can seize guns when investigating domestic violence crimes.18Namely, whenever a peace officer determines that a family violence crime has been committed, the officer may seize any ammunition at the location where the crime is alleged to have been committed that is in the possession of any person arrested for the commission of such crime or suspected of its commission or that is in plain view. The ammunition must be returned in its original condition to the rightful owner unless that person is ineligible to possess the ammunition, or unless otherwise ordered by the court.19Disposal of Contraband AmmunitionFirearms and ammunition determined by a court to be contraband or a nuisance pursuant to state law must be turned over to the Bureau of Identification of the Connecticut Division of State Police for destruction or appropriate use or disposal by sale at public auction.20The proceeds of any such sale must be paid to the State Treasurer and deposited by the State Treasurer in the forfeit firearms account within the general fund.21Seizure of AmmunitionIf any state’s attorney or assistant state’s attorney, or any two police officers have probable cause to believe that a person: 1) Poses a risk of imminent personal injury to themselves or to others; 2) Possesses one or more firearms, and 3) Such firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, then a judge may issue a warrant commanding law enforcement to enter into or upon the named place or thing, search the place or thing or the person, and take into custody any firearms and ammunition.22This action can only be taken if the officers have made an independent investigation and believe there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent the person from causing imminent personal injury to himself, herself or others with a firearm.23See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in DelawareLast updatedNovember 25, 2019.Persons Prohibited from Purchasing/Possessing AmmunitionDelaware prohibits the purchase, ownership, possession or control of ammunition by the same categories of persons who are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms under state law.1See the Delaware Prohibited Purchasers Generally section for these prohibited categories.Minimum Age to Purchase/Possess AmmunitionDelaware prohibits the transfer of ammunition to persons under age 18, unless the person transferring the ammunition is the minor’s parent or guardian or first receives the permission of the minor’s parent or guardian.2Delaware does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition; orProhibit the possession, transfer or use of armor-piercing or other unreasonably dangerous ammunition, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in FloridaLast updatedOctober 28, 2019.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Florida law prohibits the possession of ammunition by the same persons who are directly prohibited by Florida law from possessing firearms, although the persons who are prevented from obtaining firearms through the background check process required by Florida law are not similarly prevented from obtaining ammunition.1The federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions also apply.Florida prohibits the manufacture, sale or delivery of any armor-piercing bullet or exploding bullet, or “dragon’s breath” shotgun shell, bolo shell, or flechette shell.2The state also prohibits the possession of an armor-piercing bullet or exploding bullet with knowledge of its armor-piercing or exploding capabilities loaded in a handgun, and the possession of a dragon’s breath shotgun shell, bolo shell, or flechette shell with knowledge of its capabilities loaded in any firearm.3Each of these terms is defined.4The definition of “armor-piercing bullet” differs from the definition of “armor-piercing ammunition” in federal law, which also restricts the manufacture, sale, importation and delivery of such ammunition.Florida law does not:Impose a minimum age for the purchase or possession of ammunition, although federal minimum age requirements apply;Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require a license for the purchase or possession of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Require the safe storage of ammunition; orRestrict the locations where ammunition may be carried.Ammunition Regulation in GeorgiaLast updatedNovember 18, 2019.Georgia law does not significantly regulate the sale, transfer, purchase or possession of ammunition in any way. Furthermore, Georgia law limits local regulation of ammunition. See Local Authority to Regulate Firearms in Georgia for further information.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in HawaiiLast updatedOctober 28, 2019.Purchase and Possession of AmmunitionHawaii prohibits the ownership, control or possession of ammunition by any person who:Is a fugitive from justice;Is a person prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law;Is under indictment for, or has been convicted of, a felony or any crime of violence, or an illegal sale of any drug;Is or has been under treatment or counseling for addiction to, abuse of, or dependence upon any dangerous drug, intoxicating compound, or intoxicating liquor;Has been acquitted of a crime on the grounds of mental disease, disorder, or defect, or is or has been diagnosed as having a significant behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder, or for treatment for organic brain syndromes;Is less than 25 years old and has been adjudicated by the family court to have committed a felony, two or more crimes of violence, or an illegal sale of any drug;Is a minor who: 1) Is or has been under treatment for addiction to any dangerous drug, intoxicating compound, or intoxicating liquor; 2) is a fugitive from justice; or 3) Has been determined not to have been responsible for a criminal act or has been committed to any institution on account of a mental disease, disorder, or defect; orHas been restrained pursuant to an order of any court from contacting, threatening, or physically abusing any person, as long as the order or any extension is in effect, unless the order specifically permits the possession of ammunition.1Safe Storage of AmmunitionHawaii requires all ammunition to be confined to the possessor’s business or residence and only allows for the limited transport of ammunition in an enclosed container away from these locations.2Hawaii law does not specify any ammunition storage practices, however.Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionHawaii prohibits the manufacture, possession, sale or other transfer, barter, trade, gift or acquisition of any ammunition or projectile component coated with Teflon or a similar coating designed primarily to enhance its capacity to penetrate metal or pierce protective armor.3Hawaii also prohibits the manufacture, possession, sale or other transfer, barter, trade, gift or acquisition of ammunition or projectile components designed or intended to explode or segment upon impact with a target.4In addition, the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.Hawaii does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers; orRequire a license to purchase or possess ammunition.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in IdahoLast updatedOctober 27, 2019.Minimum Age to Purchase/PossessIdaho prohibits any person, firm, association or corporation from selling or giving any minor under the age of 16 any shells or fixed ammunition of any kind, except shells loaded for use in shotguns or for use in rifles of 22 caliber or smaller without the written consent of the parents or guardian of the minor.1However, federal law prohibits firearms dealers from selling or delivering ammunition for a shotgun or rifle to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18, and from selling or delivering handgun ammunition to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 21.2Federal law prohibits unlicensed persons generally from selling, delivering or otherwise transferring handgun ammunition to any person the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18.3Federal law also generally prohibits the possession of handgun ammunition by anyone under the age of 18.4Safe Storage of AmmunitionA state administrative regulation requires house parents at a children’s residential care facility to store any ammunition under lock and key separate from firearms and inaccessible to children.5Idaho does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition; orProhibit the possession, transfer or use of armor-piercing or other unreasonably dangerous ammunition, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.For additional information on the regulation of minors in Idaho, see the Idaho Minimum Age to Purchase / Possess and Idaho Trafficking sections.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in IllinoisLast updatedSeptember 13, 2018.License to Sell AmmunitionIllinois does not require ammunition sellers to obtain a license or maintain records of ammunition purchasers.License to Purchase/Possess AmmunitionIllinois requires residents to obtain a Firearm Owner’s Identification (“FOID”) card before they can lawfully purchase or possess ammunition.1No person may transfer firearm ammunition in Illinois unless the transferee displays a currently valid FOID card.2For detailed information on the requirements for a FOID card, see Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers in Illinois section.Any resident purchasing ammunition outside the state must provide the seller with a copy of his or her valid FOID card and either his or her Illinois driver’s license or Illinois State Identification card prior to the shipment of the ammunition. The ammunition may be shipped only to an address on either of those two documents.3People Prohibited from Purchasing or Possessing AmmunitionIllinois prohibit the purchase or possession of ammunition by the same categories of people who are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms under state law.4Federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions also apply.Minimum Age to Purchase or Possess AmmunitionIllinois generally prohibits persons under age 21 from obtaining a FOID card, which is required to purchase or possess ammunition.5A person under age 21 must have the written consent of a parent or legal guardian to purchase ammunition.6Safe Storage of AmmunitionIllinois does not generally require firearm owners to safely store ammunition. However, ammunition kept or stored in child day care facilities, foster homes or similar locations must be kept in locked storage separate from firearms and inaccessible to children.7Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionIllinois prohibits the knowing manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, or carrying of any armor-piercing bullet, dragon’s breath shotgun shell, bolo shell, or flechette shell.8Illinois also bans the knowing manufacture, sale, offer of sale, or other transfer of any bullet or shell which is represented to be an armor piercing bullet, a dragon’s breath shotgun shell, a bolo shell, or a flechette shell.9Illinois prohibits the reckless use or discharge of an armor-piercing bullet, flechette shell, dragon’s breath shell or bolo shell.10The state also prohibits the possession, concealed on or about the person, of an armor piercing bullet, dragon’s breath shotgun shell, bolo shell, or flechette shell.11Illinois prohibits the sale, manufacture or acquisition and possession of exploding ammunition.12“Explosive bullet” means the projectile portion of an ammunition cartridge which contains or carries an explosive charge which will explode upon contact with the flesh of a human or an animal. “Cartridge” means a tubular metal case having a projectile affixed at the front thereof and a cap or primer at the rear end thereof, with the propellant contained in such tube between the projectile and the cap.13Federal law also prohibits certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in IndianaLast updatedNovember 6, 2019.Indiana generally prohibits people from knowingly or intentionally manufacturing, possessing, transferring or offering to transfer armor-piercing ammunition, as defined.1Note that the federal prohibitions on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition also apply.Indiana does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition; orImpose a minimum age for the purchase or possession of ammunition.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in IowaLast updatedNovember 15, 2019.Iowa law does not:Prohibit individuals ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition;Require a license for the purchase or possession of ammunition; orRequire a license to sell ammunition.Minimum Age to Purchase/Possess AmmunitionIowa prohibits any person from selling or otherwise transferring handgun ammunition to a person under age 21.1However, a parent or guardian or spouse who is age 21 or older may allow a minor of any age to possess handgun ammunition for any lawful purpose while under the “direct supervision” of the parent, guardian or spouse, or while the person receives instruction in the proper use of a handgun from an instructor age 21 or older, with the consent of the parent, guardian or spouse.2Iowa also generally prohibits any person from selling rifle or shotgun ammunition to a person under age 18.3A parent or guardian over age 18, or another with the express consent of the minor’s parent or guardian, may allow a minor to possess rifle or shotgun ammunition.4See the Iowa Minimum Age to Purchase/Possess section for further information.Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionIowa generally prohibits any person from knowingly possessing any bullet or projectile containing any chemical compound or mixture designed to explode or detonate upon impact.5Iowa generally prohibits the possession of any shotgun shell or cartridge containing “exothermic pyrophoric misch” metal as a projectile, which is designed to throw or project a flame or fireball to simulate a flamethrower.6The federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition also applies.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in KansasLast updatedNovember 18, 2019.Kansas law prohibits possessing, manufacturing, causing to be manufactured, selling, offering for sale, lending, purchasing or giving away any cartridge which can be fired by a handgun and which has a plastic-coated bullet that has a core of less than 60% lead by weight.1Kansas law does not:Impose a minimum age for the purchase or possession of ammunition (although federal law applies);Prohibit individuals ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Require a license for the purchase or possession of ammunition; orRequire a license to sell ammunition.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in KentuckyLast updatedNovember 13, 2019.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Kentucky law, like federal law, prohibits any person from knowingly manufacturing, selling, delivering, transferring, or importing armor-piercing ammunition, defined as a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium, with exceptions for certain sporting shot and industrial materials.1This prohibition does not apply to members of the U.S. Armed Forces or law enforcement acting within the scope of their duties, and does not prohibit licensed gun dealers from possessing the ammunition for the purpose of receiving and transferring it to these exempt individuals.2Kentucky law also prohibits a person from being armed with a firearm loaded with armor-piercing ammunition or flanged ammunition during the commission of a felony, or in flight immediately thereafter.3Flanged ammunition is defined as ammunition with a soft lead core and sharp flanges that are designed to expand upon impact.4Kentucky law does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers; orProhibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply.Ammunition Regulation in LouisianaLast updatedOctober 12, 2018.In 2008, Louisiana enacted a law prohibiting any person from intentionally giving, selling, donating, providing, lending, delivering, or otherwise transferring ammunition to any person known by the offender to have been convicted of a felony and prohibited by Louisiana law from possessing a firearm.1Louisiana law also prohibits the import, manufacture, sale, purchase, possession and transfer of armor-piercing bullets.2Federal law also restricts armor-piercing bullets, although the definition of that term differs under federal and Louisiana law.3However, Louisiana does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers; orProhibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in MaineLast updatedNovember 24, 2019.Maine law prohibits knowingly selling, furnishing, giving or offering to sell, furnish or give ammunition to a child under 16 years of age.1Federal age restrictions for ammunition sales are stricter.Maine law prohibits knowingly possessing armor-piercing ammunition, other than as part of a bona fide collection.2The Maine definition of “armor-piercing ammunition” differs slightly from the federal definition of armor-piercing ammunition.Maine does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers; orProhibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in MarylandLast updatedNovember 15, 2019.Prohibited PersonsUnder Maryland law, a person may not possess ammunition if that person is prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm under Maryland’s Public Safety laws.1“Ammunition” for these purposes means a cartridge, shell, or any other device containing explosive or incendiary material designed and intended for use in a firearm.2See the Prohibited Purchasers Generally in Maryland section for details on circumstances that prohibit a person from possessing a regulated firearm.Loading AmmunitionMaryland requires any person engaged in the business of “loading or reloading small arms ammunition” to obtain a license.3A license is also required for possession or storage of quantities over five pounds of: 1) “smokeless powder for the loading or reloading of small arms ammunition;” or 2) “black powder for the loading or reloading of small arms ammunition.”4Exceptions are included for persons who handle smaller quantities of smokeless or black powder for personal use so long as the powder is stored in the original shipping containers.5Maryland does not regulate the sale or possession of other kinds of unreasonably dangerous ammunition, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.In addition, no person may possess or store explosives for use in firearms in “multifamily dwellings, apartments, dormitories, hotels, schools, other public buildings, or buildings or structures open for public use.”6Minimum Age to Purchase/Possess AmmunitionIn Maryland, no person may sell, rent or transfer ammunition solely designed for a handgun or assault weapon to a person under age 21.7No person may sell ammunition for any firearm to a person under age 18.8Maryland does not:Require a license to sell regular ammunition;Ensure that sellers of ammunition maintain records of the purchasers; orRequire a license to purchase or possess regular ammunition.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in MassachusettsLast updatedSeptember 14, 2018.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Massachusetts law does not regulate or prohibit any types of unreasonably dangerous ammunition. Massachusetts does, however, do each of the following things, as described below:Require a license for the purchase or possession of ammunition;Impose a minimum age to purchase or possess ammunition; andRequire a license to sell ammunition.Licensing of Ammunition Purchasers and PossessorsMassachusetts requires a firearm license to purchase or possess ammunition. Any person with a license to carry is permitted to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry all types of lawful firearms, including both large and non-large capacity handguns, rifles, shotguns, and feeding devices and ammunition for these firearms.1Alternatively, in Massachusetts, any person may purchase and possess rifles, shotguns and “non large capacity” feeding devices and ammunition for rifles and shotguns with a valid firearm identification (FID) card.2To purchase a handgun and ammunition for a handgun, a FID card holder must also obtain a permit to purchase a handgun.3Massachusetts law penalizes anyone who sells ammunition to a person who does not have the required license(s). For detailed information on licensing requirements for firearm owners in Massachusetts, see the section on Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers.Minimum Age to Purchase / Possess AmmunitionMassachusetts law prohibits selling or furnishing long gun ammunition to anyone under age 18, and ammunition for a handgun, large capacity weapon, or large capacity feeding device to a person under age 21.4Ammunition Seller LicensingMassachusetts requires any person who sells ammunition to obtain a license. The chief of police or the board or officer having control of the police in a city or town may grant a license after a criminal history check, to anyone who is not:An alien;A minor;A person who has been adjudicated a youthful offender, including those who have not received an adult sentence; orA person who has been convicted of a felony in any state or federal jurisdiction, or of the unlawful use, possession or sale of narcotic or harmful drugs.The license must specify the street and number, if any, of the building where the business is to be carried on. The Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) conducts the background check, and the local issuing authority must send CJIS a copy of the license.5Alternatively, a sporting or shooting club may obtain a license to sell or supply ammunition for regulated shooting on the premises.6Ammunition seller licenses are valid for three years.7Ammunition Regulation in MichiganLast updatedNovember 18, 2019.Laws Prohibiting Certain Persons from Purchasing/Possessing AmmunitionMichigan prohibits handgun sellers from selling ammunition to any person the seller knows is under indictment for a felony or is prohibited by state law from possessing a firearm.1See the Michigan Prohibited Purchasers Generally section for a list of these individuals.Federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions also apply.Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionMichigan generally prohibits any person from manufacturing, distributing, selling or using armor-piercing ammunition.2“Armor piercing ammunition” means a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and is constructed entirely, excluding the presence of traces of other substances, of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, or beryllium copper, and does not include:Shotgun shot that is required by federal law or by a law of this state to be used for hunting purposes;A frangible projectile designed for target shooting;A projectile that the director of the Michigan Department of State Police finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes; orA projectile or projectile core that the director of the Michigan Department of State Police finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes.3The federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition also applies.Michigan does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Ensure that sellers of ammunition maintain records of the purchasers; orRequire a license to purchase or possess ammunition.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in MinnesotaLast updatedNovember 18, 2019.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Minnesota does not:• Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition;• Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers; orProhibited PersonsMinnesota generally extends its laws regarding persons prohibited from possessing firearms to include parallel prohibitions preventing such persons from possessing ammunition as well.1Ammunition Sales Licensing/RegulationMinnesota does not require a license to sell ammunition. The state does prohibit the display of centerfire metallic-case handgun ammunition for sale to the public in a manner that makes the ammunition directly accessible to persons under age 18, unless the display is under observation of the seller or the seller’s employee or agent, or the seller takes reasonable steps to exclude underage persons from the immediate vicinity of the display.2Minimum Age to Purchase/Possess AmmunitionUnder Minnesota law, a person under the age of 18 years is generally prohibited from possessing ammunition, except that a person under 18 may possess ammunition designed for use in a firearm that the person may lawfully possess.3Minnesota generally bans furnishing ammunition to a child under age 14 outside of a municipality,4and to a minor (under age 18) without the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian or the police department of the municipality, while within the municipality.5Federal ammunition age restrictions also apply.Restricting Locations Where Ammunition May be PossessedMinnesota generally prohibits the possession of ammunition within any courthouse complex or state building within the Capitol Area, other than the National Guard Armory.6Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionMinnesota prohibits the use or possession of a “metal-penetrating bullet” during the commission of a crime.7A “metal-penetrating bullet” is defined as a handgun bullet of “9 mm, .25, .32, .357, .38, .41, .44, or .451 caliber which is comprised of a hardened core equal to the minimum of the maximum attainable hardness by solid red metal alloys which purposely reduces the normal expansion or mushrooming of the bullet’s shape upon impact.”8Federal prohibitions on armor-piercing ammunition also apply.Ammunition Regulation in MississippiLast updatedNovember 8, 2019.Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionMississippi prohibits any person or corporation not duly authorized under federal law from making, manufacturing, selling or possessing armor piercing ammunition as defined by federal law.1In addition, the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies. Mississippi also prohibits any person or entity not authorized under federal law from making, manufacturing, selling or possessing armor-piercing ammunition.2Mississippi does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;License persons who purchase or possess ammunition; orProhibit persons who are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms under state law from purchasing or possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in MissouriLast updatedOctober 9, 2018.Missouri generally prohibits the knowing possession, manufacture, transportation, repair or sale of a bullet or projectile that explodes or detonates on impact due to an independent explosive charge after being shot from a firearm.1Missouri prohibits anyone from recklessly selling, leasing, loaning, giving away or delivering ammunition to a person who is intoxicated.2Missouri also makes it a violation of state law for anyone to violate the federal law prohibiting a person under age 18 from possessing handgun ammunition and prohibiting the sale or transfer of handgun ammunition to a person under age 18.3.))See the section entitled Firearms Trafficking in Missouri regarding a law prohibiting certain illegal sales of ammunition.Missouri does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Ensure that persons purchasing ammunition have a license or permit;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Prohibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition,4 although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply; orProhibit armor-piercing ammunition, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.5Ammunition Regulation in MontanaLast updatedNovember 15, 2019.Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionMontana does not prohibit the possession, transfer or use of armor-piercing or other unreasonably dangerous ammunition. Montana does mandate a sentence enhancement for any conviction for a crime in which bodily injury was inflicted, attempted, or threatened by someone who knowingly used or carried a handgun loaded with armor-piercing ammunition, however.1Federal law also regulates armor-piercing ammunition.Montana does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;License persons who purchase or possess ammunition; orProhibit persons who are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms under state law from purchasing or possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in NebraskaLast updatedNovember 15, 2019.Nebraska does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Prohibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply; orProhibit armor-piercing and other unreasonably dangerous ammunition, although federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in NevadaLast updatedNovember 14, 2019.Nevada does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Obligate ammunition purchasers to obtain a license; orRequire sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers.Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionNevada prohibits the manufacture or sale of any “metal-penetrating bullet” capable of being fired from a handgun.1A “metal-penetrating bullet” means a bullet whose core reduces the normal expansion of the bullet upon impact, and is at least as hard as the maximum hardness attainable using solid red metal alloys, and that can be used in a handgun.2Persons Prohibited from Purchasing/Possessing AmmunitionIn Nevada, a person may not sell or otherwise dispose of any ammunition to another person if the seller or transferor has “actual knowledge” that the person:Is under indictment for, or has been convicted of, a felony in Nevada, any other state, or under federal law;Is a fugitive from justice;Has been adjudicated as mentally ill or has been committed to any mental health facility; orIs illegally or unlawfully in the United States.3See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in New HampshireLast updatedNovember 6, 2019.New Hampshire prohibits any person from transferring ammunition of any kind to a person under the age of 16, other than her or his own child, grandchild, or ward.1New Hampshire law prohibits any person from attempting to use or using, in the course of committing any misdemeanor or felony, any teflon-coated or armor-piercing bullet or cartridge or any bullet or cartridge that contains an explosive substance in the projectile and is designed to explode upon impact.2Among other things, New Hampshire law does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers; orProhibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms from possessing ammunition.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in New JerseyLast updatedOctober 28, 2019.Persons Prohibited from Purchasing/Possessing AmmunitionIn 2019, New Jersey amended the law prohibiting certain categories of individuals from purchasing, owning, possessing or controlling firearms to also include ammunition. For a list of individuals prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition in New Jersey, see Prohibited Purchasers Generally in New Jersey.In order to sell, transfer, purchase or otherwise acquire any handgun ammunition in New Jersey, the transferee must be a licensed gun dealer, wholesaler or manufacturer, or possess a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card, a permit to purchase a handgun, or a permit to carry a handgun.1Handgun ammunition may be transferred for lawful use in certain narrow circumstances.2In addition, the sale of a “de minimis” amount of handgun ammunition for immediate use at a firearm range is permitted if the range is operated by a: 1) licensed firearms dealer; 2) law enforcement agency; 3) legally recognized military organization; or 4) rifle or pistol club which has filed a copy of its charter with the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police.3Ammunition Seller Record-keepingRetail sellers of firearm ammunition are required to maintain a permanent record of ammunition acquisition and disposition.4Acquisition records must be kept at the business location and record the name of the manufacturer, the type, caliber or gauge, quantity of the ammunition acquired, the date of each acquisition and person from whom the ammunition was acquired. Disposition records must be in bound form and contain the date of the transaction, name of manufacturer, caliber or gauge, quantity of ammunition sold, name, address and date of birth of purchaser, and identification used to establish the identity of the purchaser. Sellers must record sales or other dispositions of handgun ammunition and ammunition that may be interchangeable between rifles and handguns, as well as hollow-nosed or dum-dum ammunition.5Minimum Age to Purchase/PossessNew Jersey prohibits any person from selling, giving, transferring, assigning or otherwise disposing of handgun ammunition to a person under age 21.6Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionNew Jersey generally prohibits any person from knowingly possessing, manufacturing, transporting, shipping, selling, or disposing armor piercing ammunition.7New Jersey also prohibits the knowing possession of any hollow nose or dum-dum bullet.8Hollow nose and dum-dum are terms associated with bullets designed to expand on impact. These terms are not specifically defined under New Jersey law.The federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition also applies.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in New MexicoLast updatedSeptember 11, 2018.Restricting Locations Where Ammunition May be PossessedNew Mexico prohibits any person from bringing ammunition onto the grounds of the penitentiary of New Mexico or any other designated correctional institution,1or any county or municipal jail.2The state also prohibits any person from bringing ammunition into any juvenile detention or correctional facility.3New Mexico does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Ensure that sellers of ammunition maintain records of the purchasers;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition;Prohibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply; orRestrict armor-piercing ammunition, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in New YorkLast updatedOctober 23, 2018.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.New York law defines a “Seller of ammunition,” as any person, firm or corporate entity engaging in the business of purchasing, selling, or keeping ammunition. This does not apply to private sellers.1Licensing of Ammunition SellersAmmunition sellers in New York must register with the state police, except for ammunition sellers who are already validly licensed firearms dealers. Ammunition sales are prohibited except through licensed dealers or registered sellers of ammunition. The transfer of ammunition must occur in person.2Record Retention Requirement for Ammunition SalesAmmunition sellers and firearms dealers must, at the time of a transaction, record the transaction details (date, name, age, occupation, and residences of anyone transferring or receiving ammunition and also the amount, caliber, manufacturer’s name and serial number or other distinguishing information) in a record book to be maintained on the premises and made available for inspection by any law enforcement officer. This information is not considered a public record.3Background Checks Before Transfer of AmmunitionAn ammunition seller or firearms dealer may not transfer any ammunition to anyone other than a licensed dealer unless he or she conducts a check against records maintained in the state’s electronic database and receives a number identifying the transaction and signifying that the transferee is not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing the firearm or ammunition.4The ammunition seller or gun dealer must also check a valid driver’s license or other photo identification of the prospective purchaser prior to transfer.After the transfer, the transferee must indicate to the database that the transaction was completed at which time a record of the transaction, to be maintained for no longer than one year, will be made available to law enforcement but will not be made a part of the new firearms database for licenses and records or the new firearms registry. A record of the transaction may be shared with local law enforcement but will not be a public record. This requirement will not apply if the background check system is not operational or if a dealer or seller was issued a waiver from conducting a background check by the state police.5Minimum Age to Purchase/Possess AmmunitionNew York prohibits the possession of ammunition by any person under age 16.6Federal law imposes additional age restrictions.Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionNew York prohibits the possession of armor piercing ammunition with the intent to use it unlawfully against another.7“Armor piercing ammunition” is any ammunition capable of being used in handguns that contains a projectile or projectile core constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or uranium.8New York generally prohibits any person from knowingly possessing any bullet containing an explosive substance designed to explode or detonate upon impact.9License to Purchase Handgun AmmunitionA firearms dealer may not sell any ammunition designed exclusively for use in a handgun to any person who is not authorized to possess a pistol or revolver.10See Licensing of Gun Owners in New York for further information.Ammunition Regulation in North CarolinaLast updatedNovember 6, 2019.North Carolina prohibits any person from importing, manufacturing, possessing, storing, transporting, selling, offering to sell, purchasing, offering to purchase, delivering, giving or acquiring any teflon-coated bullet.1This prohibition does not apply to the following individuals:Licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers for the purpose of sale to authorized law-enforcement agencies; orInventors, designers, ordinance consultants and researchers, chemists, physicists, and other persons employed by or under contract with a manufacturing company engaged in making or doing research designed to enlarge knowledge or to facilitate the creation, development, or manufacture of more effective police-type body armor.2North Carolina does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition; orProhibit the possession, transfer or use of armor-piercing, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in North DakotaLast updatedNovember 14, 2019.North Dakota prohibits knowingly supplying ammunition to, or procuring ammunition for, a person who is prohibited by North Dakota law from receiving or possessing it.1However, no North Dakota law limits the persons who may receive or possess ammunition. Note that federal law prohibits certain persons from receiving or possessing ammunition and prohibits the sale or transfer of ammunition to these persons.2However, federal law does not require a seller of ammunition to conduct a background check on the purchaser to determine whether he or she is a prohibited person.3North Dakota also does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition; orProhibit the possession, transfer or use of armor-piercing or other unreasonably dangerous ammunition, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in OhioLast updatedNovember 6, 2019.Ohio does not:• Require a license for the sale of ammunition;• Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;• Prohibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply;• Prohibit armor-piercing ammunition, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies; or• Otherwise regulate ammunition.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in OklahomaLast updatedNovember 1, 2019.Oklahoma bans the possession, carrying, use, attempted use, manufacture, importation, advertising for sale or sale of any “restricted bullet.”1A “restricted bullet” is a round or elongated missile with a core of less than 60% lead and that has a fluorocarbon coating, designed to travel at high velocity and capable of penetrating body armor.2Oklahoma also prohibits carrying a concealed handgun loaded with ammunition larger than .45 caliber.3In 2011, Oklahoma enacted a law prohibiting certain conduct relating to fraudulent purchase of ammunition. See our Oklahoma Trafficking section.Oklahoma does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;License persons who purchase or possess ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers; orProhibit persons who are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms under state law from purchasing or possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in OregonLast updatedNovember 17, 2019.Oregon prohibits any person from making, selling, buying or possessing any handgun ammunition (principally for use in pistols and revolvers) where the bullet or projectile is coated with Teflon or any chemical compound with properties similar to Teflon, and which is intended to penetrate soft body armor, and where the person intends that the ammunition be used in the commission of a felony.1Federal law also prohibits certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition.Oregon does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Prohibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply;Restrict locations where ammunition may be possessed; orRequire the safe storage of ammunition.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in PennsylvaniaLast updatedNovember 18, 2019.Pennsylvania law makes it a separate crime for a person who commits or attempts to commit a “crime of violence” to possess, use or attempt to use a KTW teflon-coated bullet or other “armor-piercing ammunition” while committing or attempting to commit that crime.1“Armor-piercing ammunition” is defined as:[A]mmunition which, when or if fired from any firearm as defined in section 6102 that is used or attempted to be used in violation of subsection (a) under the test procedure of the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standard for the Ballistics Resistance of Police Body Armor promulgated December 1978, is determined to be capable of penetrating bullet-resistant apparel or body armor meeting the requirements of Type IIA of Standard NILECJ-STD-0101.01 as formulated by the United States Department of Justice and published in December of 1978.2Pennsylvania law does not otherwise regulate the sale or possession of ammunition in any way.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in Rhode IslandLast updatedNovember 17, 2019.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Rhode Island does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Ensure that sellers of ammunition maintain records of the purchasers;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition; orProhibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply.Minimum Age to Purchase/Possess AmmunitionRhode Island generally prohibits any person from selling, transferring, giving, conveying or causing to be sold, transferred, given or conveyed, any firearm or ammunition to any person under age 18, when the person knows or has reason to know that the recipient is under age 18.1Persons under age 18 are also prohibited from possessing or using ammunition.2Federal minimum age limits also apply.Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionRhode Island prohibits the importation, manufacture, sale or other transfer or purchase of “armor-piercing bullets,” which have steel inner cores or cores of equivalent hardness and truncated cones and are designed for use in pistols as armor-piercing or metal-piercing bullets.3The federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition also applies.Ammunition Regulation in South CarolinaLast updatedNovember 6, 2019.See our Ammunition Regulation for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.South Carolina prohibits the use, transportation, manufacture, possession, distribution, sale or purchase of any ammunition or shells that are coated with Teflon.1Federal prohibitions on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition also apply.A law South Carolina adopted in 2010 makes it unlawful for a person who has been convicted of a “violent crime,” as defined by South Carolina law, to possess ammunition if the violent crime is also classified as a felony offense.2In 2013, South Carolina enacted a law making it unlawful for a person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or who has been “committed to a mental institution” to ship, transport, possess, or receive ammunition.3The definitions of “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution” mirror federal law.In 2015, South Carolina enacted a law making it unlawful for certain domestic abusers to possess ammunition.4See Domestic Violence and Firearms in South Carolina for further information.South Carolina does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition; orRequire sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers.Ammunition Regulation in South DakotaLast updatedOctober 26, 2019.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.South Dakota law does not:Prohibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply; orRegulate or prohibit any type of unreasonably dangerous ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to make a record of the purchasers;Require a license for the purchase or possession of ammunition; orRequire a license to sell ammunition.In addition, South Dakota only prohibits a person from selling, transferring, giving, loaning, furnishing, or delivering ammunition to a person under age 18, if such person knows or reasonably believes that the minor intends, at the time of transfer, to use the ammunition in the commission or attempted commission of a crime of violence.1Ammunition Regulation in TennesseeLast updatedNovember 16, 2019.Tennessee does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of purchasers;Require persons purchasing or possessing ammunition to obtain a license; orRequire the safe storage of ammunition in the home.Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionTennessee prohibits the sale, offer for sale, display for sale, manufacture and use of any ammunition cartridge containing a bullet with explosive material designed to detonate upon impact.1Federal prohibitions on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition also apply.Persons Prohibited from Purchasing/Possessing AmmunitionTennessee prohibits any person from intentionally, knowingly or recklessly selling ammunition to an intoxicated person.2Tennessee does not otherwise prohibit the transfer of ammunition to, or the purchase and possession of ammunition by, persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law, although federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in TexasLast updatedSeptember 14, 2018.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Texas law does not:Impose a minimum age for the purchase or possession of ammunition;Require the seller of ammunition to make a record of the purchaser;Require a license for the purchase or possession of ammunition; orRequire a license to sell ammunition.Purchase/Possession ProhibitionsTexas prohibits the transfer of ammunition to some, but not all, of the same categories of persons who are prohibited from purchasing firearms under state law. More specifically, Texas prohibits any person from intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly selling ammunition to any person who is intoxicated, and from knowingly selling ammunition to any person who has been convicted of a felony before the fifth anniversary of the later of: 1) the person’s release from confinement following conviction of the felony; or 2) the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision following conviction of the felony.1Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionTexas prohibits the intentional or knowing possession, manufacture, sale, transportation or repair of any armor-piercing ammunition. “Armor-piercing ammunition” is defined as “handgun ammunition that is designed primarily for the purpose of penetrating metal or body armor and to be used principally in pistols and revolvers.”2Ammunition Regulation in the District of ColumbiaLast updatedOctober 24, 2019.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Prohibited Possessors/Registration RequirementsThe District of Columbia broadly prohibits the possession of ammunition1. A holder of a valid registration certificate for a firearm may possess ammunition, however ((D.C. Code Ann. § 7-2506.01(a)(3).)). Licensed firearms dealers, on-duty law enforcement officers, holders of ammunition collector’s certificates, and persons temporarily possessing ammunition while participating in a firearms training and safety class conducted by a firearms instructor also exempt2.Federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions also apply.Ammunition Sales Licensing/RegulationThe sale or other transfer of ammunition is strictly regulated. Any person or organization eligible to register a firearm may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition only to a licensed dealer3.Licensed dealers may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition only if:The sale or transfer is made in person;The purchaser exhibits, at the time of transfer, a valid registration certificate (if the purchaser is a nonresident, he or she must produce proof that the firearm is lawfully possessed in the jurisdiction where such person resides);The ammunition to be transferred is of the same caliber or gauge as the firearm described in the registration certificate (or other similar proof in the case of nonresident); andThe purchaser signs a receipt for the ammunition (the dealer must maintain this receipt for at least one year from the date of sale)4.This does not apply to, inter alia, sales to other licensed dealers and certain law enforcement officers and government agents5.For additional information about ammunition that must be maintained as part of a dealer’s inventory, see the District Dealer Regulations section.Owners or managers of establishments where ammunition is stored or kept for sale at wholesale or at both wholesale and retail must pay a license fee of $7606. Owners or managers of establishments where ammunition is kept for sale at retail must pay a license fee of $477.Minimum Age to Purchase/Possess AmmunitionBecause a registration certificate is required for the possession of a firearm8, licensed dealers may only transfer ammunition to valid registration certificate holders9, and persons under age 21 cannot obtain a registration certificate10, persons under age 21 are generally prohibited from possessing or obtaining ammunition.Federal minimum age requirements may also apply.Regulation of Unreasonably Dangerous AmmunitionUnder District law, a “restricted pistol bullet” is defined asA projectile or projectile core which may be used in a pistol and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;A full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a pistol and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile; orAmmunition for a .50 BMG rifle.11.Licensed dealers may transfer restricted pistol bullets to only: 1) another licensed dealer; or 2) any law enforcement officer or agent of the District or the United States, when such officer or agent is on duty and acting within the scope of his or her duties when acquiring such ammunition, if the officer or agent has in his or her possession a statement from the head of his or her agency stating that the item is to be used only in official duties.12.The District prohibits firearm registration certificate holders from possessing restricted pistol bullets13.Federal law also prohibits certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition.Ammunition Regulation in UtahLast updatedNovember 18, 2019.Utah limits the transportation of ammunition into or within correctional facilities, mental health facilities and institutions of higher education.1For more information, see the Utah Location Restrictions section.Utah does not:Prohibit the possession of ammunition by individuals prohibited from possessing firearms;Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition; orGenerally prohibit the possession, transfer or use of armor-piercing or other unreasonably dangerous ammunition,2 although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in VermontLast updatedSeptember 17, 2018.Vermont law prohibits any person, firm or corporation, other than a parent or guardian, from selling or furnishing any ammunition to a minor under age 16.1Federal law, however, imposes stricter age requirements on the sale of ammunition.Vermont does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Prohibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply; orProhibit armor-piercing ammunition, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in VirginiaLast updatedNovember 1, 2019.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.In 2009, Virginia enacted a law that prohibits the knowing and intentional possession or transportation of ammunition by any person: 1) convicted of a felony; 2) adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of murder, kidnapping, robbery by the threat or presentation of firearms, or rape; or 3) who is under the age of 29 and was found guilty as a juvenile (14 years of age or older) of a delinquent act which would be a felony if committed by an adult.1Virginia law does not:Prohibit other individuals ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition;Prohibit the sale or possession of unreasonably dangerous ammunition;2Impose a minimum age for the purchase or possession of ammunition (although federal law applies);Require a license for the purchase or possession of ammunition; orRequire a license to sell ammunition.Ammunition Regulation in WashingtonLast updatedOctober 29, 2018.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Licensing of Ammunition SellersNo firearms dealer may sell or otherwise transfer, or expose for sale or transfer, or have in his or her possession with intent to sell or otherwise transfer, any ammunition without being licensed by the State of Washington.1See the Washington Dealer Regulations section for further information.Safe Storage of AmmunitionSmall arms ammunition must be stored separated from flammable liquids, flammable solids and oxidizing materials by a fire-resistant wall “of one-hour rating” or by a distance of 25 feet.2State administrative regulations govern the storage of ammunition in family home child care facilities.3State administrative regulations may regulate other aspects of ammunition.Washington does not:Prohibit individuals ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition;Require a license for the possession of ammunition; orRequire a license to sell ammunition, unless the seller is operating as a dealer.Ammunition Regulation in West VirginiaLast updatedOctober 8, 2018.West Virginia prohibits a person or company from knowingly selling, renting, giving or lending ammunition to a person who is prohibited from possessing it under state or federal law.1West Virginia law, unlike federal law, does not prohibit anyone from possessing ammunition.West Virginia prohibits any person from publicly displaying or offering for sale or rent ammunition where a passerby on a street, road or alley can see it.2See the section entitled Firearms Trafficking in West Virginia regarding a law aimed at the trafficking of ammunition.West Virginia does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;Require a license to purchase or possess ammunition; orProhibit the possession, transfer or use of armor-piercing or other unreasonably dangerous ammunition, although the federal prohibition on certain kinds of armor-piercing ammunition applies.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in WisconsinLast updatedNovember 1, 2019.Wisconsin prohibits the possession or use of an armor-piercing bullet during the commission of a crime, if the possessor: 1) has a handgun loaded with an armor-piercing bullet or a projectile or projectile core with a muzzle velocity of 1,500 feet per second or greater; or 2) possesses an armor-piercing bullet.1“Armor-piercing bullet” is defined as a projectile or projectile core that may be fired from any handgun and that is constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium.2Wisconsin does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require a license or permit to purchase or possess ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers; orProhibit persons who are ineligible to possess firearms under state law from possessing ammunition, although federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply.See our Ammunition Regulation policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.Ammunition Regulation in WyomingLast updatedNovember 18, 2019.Wyoming does not:Require a license for the sale of ammunition;Require sellers of ammunition to maintain a record of the purchasers;License persons who purchase or possess ammunition;Regulate or prohibit unreasonably dangerous ammunition; orProhibit persons who are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms under state law from purchasing or possessing ammunition, although the federal ammunition purchaser prohibitions apply.As well: Read more: Are Hollow-Point Bullets Illegal For Personal DefenseUnder Creative Commons License: Attribution AMMOLAND:There is no statutory restriction on the type of ammo that you can carry in your personal defense weapon. Nor is there any prohibition on sighting devices. There may be some potential concerns about jury perception if you ever have to use your gun in self-defense and find yourself facing charges. (This is much less likely to occur at this point in history than prior to the enactment of Public Act 311 of 2006 [MCL 780.951] which created presumptions that deadly force is appropriate in certain situations and also created qualified immunity to those who use force in legitimate self defense.)There have been examples of prosecutors focusing on the hardware used by defendants. They try to overcome the self-defense argument by painting a picture of the armed citizen as blood-thirsty. In one particular case in another state, the defendant used a certain brand of hollow-point ammo that came in a box featuring a picture of a hawk or eagle talon. It appears that the tactic was successful and contributed to the conviction of an armed citizen who argued that he fired to save his life. I'm told that the particular brand of ammo in question has changed it's name and packaging.Many law-enforcement agencies use hollow-point ammunition. There are some famous brands that are well-known as “good guy” ammo, and a prosecutor would have a hard time making the case that one who carries the same ammo in his or her personal defense weapon is being unreasonable. In my opinion, there is no reason not to carry effective personal defense ammunition.The same is true of laser sights in my opinion. The technology is mature, widely available, and considered effective by tactical experts. From a legal standpoint, the key is to make sure that any use of force is justified by necessity and that you control your weapon. Insofar as a laser helps with control, it seems to me that it is more likely to help a self-defense shooter avoid liability than create perception issues in the event of a jury trial.I have personally recommended hollow-point ammo and laser sights to family and friends, and will continue to do so.