Breach of the rules on carrying gas aerosol and electroshock devices (Art. 181⁷)

Loading…

I flew out of Georgia with pepper spray in my luggage. Is that covered?

Taking such a device out of Georgia is named expressly in the article, alongside carrying, acquiring, transporting and dispatching. But the article penalises breaching the rules on those acts, not the acts themselves, so what matters is which rule is said to have been broken. That rule should be identified in the protocol.

Will the device be confiscated?

The text of this article sets the fine together with confiscation of the weapon in both parts, and it does not carry the "or without it" alternative found in some other provisions. For that reason the seizure record — type, quantity and condition of the item — is worth checking closely for accuracy.

Does this article also cover selling or importing these devices?

No. Manufacture, import and trade are not the subject of Article 181⁷; it addresses carrying, acquisition, taking out of Georgia, transport and dispatch. If a decision refers to selling or importing, the provision applied should be checked, because it is not this one.

What happens if this is not the first time?

Where an administrative penalty has already been imposed under Part 1 and the person again commits any offence defined by that part, the fine is GEL 1,000 with confiscation of the weapon, instead of GEL 500. It is therefore worth verifying that any earlier penalty really was imposed under Part 1 of this article.

5 min·22 Aug 2026

What Article 181⁷ covers

Article 181⁷ of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia concerns two items — a gas aerosol device and an electroshock device — and five acts connected with them: carrying, acquiring, taking out of Georgia, transporting or conveying, and dispatching. The wording matters here. The article does not prohibit those acts. It attaches liability to breaching the rules that govern them. In other words, the legislator assumes that carrying, acquisition and transport each have a governing rule, and that the offence consists in departing from it. Every case under this article therefore turns on one question above all others: which specific rule was treated as breached. Equally worth noting is what falls outside the article. Manufacture, import and trade in these devices are not its subject; those activities are addressed by separate provisions of the Code. Nor does it extend to sound (acoustic) weapons: the text of Article 181⁷ names only gas aerosol and electroshock devices, which makes the very first thing to check whether the item recorded in the protocol really is one of those two.

Breach of the rules on carrying gas aerosol and electroshock devices (Art. 181⁷)