What Article 182⁴ actually covers
Article 182⁴ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences deals with signal weapons and the cartridges intended for them. It does not ask whether you hold the weapon lawfully. It asks a narrower question: were the rules on keeping, transporting, dispatching and carrying that weapon observed at the moment in question. That is why people whose paperwork is entirely in order still find a protocol drawn up against them — the argument is about where the weapon was and how it was held, not about whether it should exist at all.
The article has two parts. Part 1 describes the offence itself. Part 2 addresses the situation where the person has already been made subject to an administrative penalty for an offence under that same part 1. Both parts carry the same additional consequence — confiscation of the weapon — so the money is never the only thing at stake in the case.
The wording in force comes from Law of Georgia No. 452 of 4 April 2025. The article does not itself define what counts as a signal weapon, nor does it set out the keeping, transport, dispatch and carrying rules it refers to — it states only that breaching those rules attracts the penalty.
The two forms the offence can take
Part 1 bundles two distinct behaviours together, and the difference between them is decisive in practice, because one carries a geographic condition and the other does not:
- breach of the rules on keeping, transporting or dispatching a signal weapon and/or the cartridges intended for it — the article attaches no location condition to this form;
- breach of the rules on carrying a signal weapon — but only where this occurs in a populated area and/or in the territory adjoining it within a radius of 500 metres.
If the carrying form has been applied to you, the location is a question of fact rather than a formality: a 500-metre radius is a measurable distance, and it either was or was not exceeded. If instead the keeping or transport form has been applied, location stops being the criterion altogether, and the argument moves to which rule was said to be broken and what evidence establishes it.

