I lost my firearm but I did report it to the police. Can I still be fined?

Reporting the loss answers one limb of part 1 — failure to notify — but not the others. The article separately penalises a breach of the rules on keeping, carrying, transporting or dispatching the weapon where that breach caused the loss. So the question in your case becomes whether those rules were broken and whether the loss followed from it.

What does "unable to produce" the weapon mean?

Part 1 lists refusal to produce the firearm and inability to produce it side by side, and treats both as acts falling under that part. In other words, liability can arise simply because the weapon was not produced when a police officer demanded it. The reason why it was not produced is then assessed on the facts of the individual case.

Two of my weapons went missing at once. Is that treated differently?

Yes. Part 4 addresses a permit holder losing two or more weapons at the same time, and provides for restriction of weapon-related rights for a period of 4 years. That part stands on its own and does not depend on any earlier penalty or on repetition.

When does the sanction stop being a fine?

Under part 3 — where a person already penalised under part 2, or under part 3 itself, again commits an act described in part 1. The sanction there is a 4-year restriction of weapon-related rights rather than a fine. The same 4-year restriction is provided by part 4 for the simultaneous loss of two or more weapons.

Does the article say how quickly a loss must be reported?

No. Article 180¹ penalises failure to notify the police, but it does not itself state the period within which notification must be made — that is fixed by other legislation. Any argument about timeliness therefore has to be built on the rules that actually apply to your permit, not on the wording of this article.

Losing a civilian firearm and failing to notify the police (Art. 180¹)

What Article 180¹ covers

Article 180¹ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences gathers several distinct situations into a single provision. What they have in common is the subject matter: a civilian firearm that has either been lost, or that cannot be produced when a police officer asks for it. The article is not aimed at the general public. It addresses a person who holds the relevant permit — parts 1 and 4 say so expressly.

In practical terms, liability under this article attaches to the duties that come with the right to hold a weapon, rather than to unlawful possession as such. A person who was entitled to have the firearm can still be penalised here, precisely because the entitlement carries obligations. The current wording of the article rests on Law of Georgia No. 3101 of 31 May 2023.

Four different acts under one penalty

Part 1 lists four acts in the alternative, any one of which is enough on its own:

breaching the rules on keeping, carrying, transporting or dispatching a civilian firearm, where that breach resulted in the loss of the weapon;
failing to notify the police that a civilian firearm has been lost;
refusing to produce the firearm when a police officer demands it;
being unable to produce the firearm when a police officer demands it.

All four attract the same penalty under part 1 — a fine of 2,000 GEL. One difference between them is nevertheless worth holding on to. The first limb requires a causal link: the breach of the rules must have resulted in the loss. The other three stand independently, and establishing them does not depend on proving any breach of the storage or carriage rules at all.

How the sanction escalates

Article 180¹ deals with repetition separately, and the sanction grows heavier at each step:

any act described in part 1 — a fine of 2,000 GEL;
commission of any act under part 1 by a person already penalised under part 1 — a fine of 4,000 GEL;
commission of any act under part 1 by a person already penalised under part 2 or under part 3 itself — restriction of weapon-related rights for a period of 4 years.

For instance: a first case draws a fine of 2,000 GEL; if the same person again commits an act falling under part 1, the fine becomes 4,000 GEL; and at the third step the sanction is no longer financial at all, because the article provides for a 4-year restriction of weapon-related rights. Each step up the ladder rests on the penalty before it, so what decides the step is whether that earlier penalty exists, which part it was imposed under, and against whom.

Two standalone rules

Alongside that chain, the article sets out two situations that do not depend on repetition at all:

where a permit holder loses two or more weapons at the same time, the article provides directly for restriction of weapon-related rights for a period of 4 years;
failure to perform the obligation under Article 29, paragraph 4, of the Law of Georgia "On Weapons" entails confiscation of the weapon registered in that person's name.

Article 180¹ does not itself explain what the obligation under Article 29, paragraph 4, consists of — it only refers to it. So where a decision rests on that part, the first thing to pin down is which specific obligation is said to have gone unperformed.

What to test in the decision

Cases under this article generally turn on facts rather than on legal construction. Look first at which of the four acts is actually alleged against you, because what has to be proved differs between them. If the allegation is a breach of the rules, the link between that breach and the loss of the weapon has to be visible on the file. If it is failure to notify, or refusal or inability to produce, then the dates matter, along with exactly what the police officer asked for and when.

Two things the article deliberately leaves elsewhere are worth naming. It does not itself set the period within which a loss must be reported to the police, and it does not spell out what a restriction of weapon-related rights covers in practice. Both are governed by other legislation, so any conclusion on them has to come from the material in your own case rather than from a general assumption.

A decision in an administrative-offence case can be challenged under the general rules of the Code; Article 180¹ provides no separate procedure of its own. Article 180¹ names neither a deadline nor a body to address — both come from the general provisions of the Code, so read them off the decision you received and check them on the first day rather than assuming them.

What to bring to a lawyer

It helps to arrive with the documents already assembled:

the administrative-offence report and the decision, in full;
the permit and registration documents for the weapon;
any trace of the report of loss made to the police — a written statement, a call or registration record, with its date;
details of any earlier penalties, since it is those that decide whether part 2 or part 3 applies rather than part 1.

No lawyer can promise an outcome. Representation does something more specific: it tests whether the correct part was selected, whether the earlier penalty the repetition rule depends on genuinely exists, and whether the conduct set out in the report is made out on the evidence rather than merely asserted in it.