What Article 181³ covers
Article 181³ of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia deals with acoustic (blank-firing) weapons and gathers several distinct forms of conduct into one provision. Part 1 prohibits bringing such a weapon into Georgia without the relevant permit. Part 2 covers carrying an acoustic weapon, and also breaching the rules on its acquisition, on taking it out of Georgia, on its transport or carriage, and on dispatching it.
Taken together, that list follows the whole cycle — from import through acquisition, carrying, carriage and export. The rules whose breach the article refers to are not written into this provision: Article 181³ neither repeats them nor defines the term "acoustic (blank-firing) weapon". Those are set by other instruments, which is why two questions always arise in a case of this kind — which rule is said to have been broken, and whether that breach is actually established.
The fines under each of the four parts
The article has four parts, and each carries a fixed sum. This is not one continuous range: which amount applies depends on which part's elements the authority matches to the facts.
- Part 1 — bringing an acoustic (blank-firing) weapon into Georgia without the relevant permit: a fine of 500 GEL, with confiscation of the weapon;
- Part 2 — carrying such a weapon, or breaching the rules on acquisition, on taking it out of Georgia, on transport or carriage, or on dispatch: a fine of 500 GEL, with confiscation of the weapon;
- Part 3 — commission, by a person on whom an administrative penalty has been imposed for an offence under part 1 or part 2, of any offence defined by that same part: a fine of 1,000 GEL, with confiscation of the weapon;
- Part 4 — commission, by a person on whom an administrative penalty has been imposed for any offence under this article, of an offence defined by part 1 or part 2 of the same article: a fine of 2,000 GEL and restriction of weapon-related rights for a term of 4 years, with confiscation of the weapon.
In all four parts confiscation stands alongside the fine rather than as an alternative to it. The sanction therefore always has two elements, and under part 4 it has three.
The two steps of repetition
Parts 3 and 4 resemble each other but are not identical, and it is precisely that difference which decides whether the figure is 1,000 or 2,000 GEL. Part 3 operates where a person already penalised under part 1 or part 2 commits an offence defined by that same part. Part 4 operates where a person already penalised under any part of this article commits an offence defined by part 1 or part 2.
One practical conclusion follows: the exact classification of the earlier penalty — the part under which it was imposed — matters as much as the current episode does. And the article sets no time window for repetition. The text of Article 181³ names no period such as "within 1 year" for offences under parts 1 and 2; its condition is simply that an administrative penalty has already been imposed.
Restriction of rights for 4 years
Part 4 is the only one that adds a measure beyond the monetary penalty and confiscation: restriction of weapon-related rights for a term of 4 years. That is the heaviest consequence the article provides, because it continues over time and is not discharged by paying a sum of money.
Which rights exactly are meant, and how the restriction is implemented, Article 181³ does not specify — it names the measure and its term and no more. So where the authority applies part 4, the first thing to verify is whether the earlier penalty on which it is built genuinely exists.
What to check in the case file
Article 181³ does not say which body draws up the protocol or within what period the decision may be challenged — that is governed by other provisions of the Code, so the deadline and the forum have to be found in the document you are holding. It is worth assembling the following:
- the permit document, or an explanation of its absence, where the case concerns import;
- documents evidencing acquisition of the weapon and its origin;
- a description of the route and conditions of any carriage or dispatch;
- the act imposing the earlier penalty, where the authority applies part 3 or part 4;
- how the object is described in the protocol — whether it is recorded as an acoustic (blank-firing) weapon at all.
Where a lawyer changes the outcome
Arguing about the size of the sum leads nowhere under this article: all four figures are fixed. The real dispute runs on three points — whether the object is what the protocol says it is; whether the conduct belongs to the list in part 1 or part 2; and whether repetition has been correctly established, since the 1,000 and 2,000 GEL parts depend entirely on it.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the wording of this article has been changed more than once: it carries references to the Law of 12 July 2021 No. 712, the Law of 31 May 2023 No. 3101 and the Law of 17 December 2025 No. 1271. Applying the version in force at the moment the act was committed therefore matters. Article 181³ itself sets no period for challenging a decision — that comes from other provisions of the Code and is stated in the document handed to you. A consultation therefore starts from what that document says about the period and the forum, while the article fixes what the dispute can be about: the classification of the object, the choice of part, and the earlier penalty on which parts 3 and 4 are built.