ST 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. Transfer of weapons -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred to one thousand rubles with or without confiscation of weapons.

2. Violation of the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand to one thousand five hundred rubles.

3. Violation of the rules for the use of weapons and ammunition for them -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand five hundred to three thousand rubles or deprivation of the right to acquire and store or store and carry weapons for a period of one to two years.

Commentary to Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. The object of an administrative offense is relations in the field of ensuring public order and public safety. The subject of an administrative offense is the rules for sending, transporting, transporting or using weapons and ammunition for them.

2. The objective side of the offense is characterized by actions related to:

Transfer of weapons (part 1);

Violation of the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them (Part 2);

Violation of the rules for the use of weapons and ammunition (Part 3).

3. Subjects administrative offenses are citizens who have reached the age of 18 and have permission to store weapons, as well as legal entities.

4. From the subjective side, an administrative offense is characterized by both intentional and careless forms of guilt.

5. Protocols on administrative offenses are drawn up by officials of internal affairs bodies (police) (Part 1 of Article 28.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

6. Cases of administrative offenses are considered officials internal affairs bodies (police) (Article 23.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), as well as (cases of violations provided for in Parts 1 and 3 of Article 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) by judges, if officials of internal affairs bodies (police) refer the case to court (Part 2 of Article 23.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Full text of Art. 12.20 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation with comments. New current edition with additions for 2019. Legal advice on Article 12.20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Violation of the rules for using external lighting devices, sound signals, hazard warning lights or warning triangle -
entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred rubles.

(Paragraph as amended, entered into force on July 8, 2007 Federal law dated June 22, 2007 N 116-FZ; as amended, put into effect on September 1, 2013 by Federal Law of July 23, 2013 N 196-FZ.

Commentary on Article 12.20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. The objects of the offense in question are public relations in the field of security traffic.

2. From the objective side, the administrative offense provided for in this article is a violation of the rules for the use of external lighting devices, sound signals, alarms or warning triangles.

In paragraph 19 of the Traffic Rules Russian Federation, approved by Resolution of the Council of Ministers - Government of the Russian Federation of October 23, 1883 N 1090 (as amended and additionally), sets out the rules for the use of external lighting devices and sound signals. So, in particular, in the dark and in conditions insufficient visibility High and low beam headlights must be turned on on all mechanical vehicles ah and mopeds; on trailers - side lights. High beams should be switched to low beams in populated areas, if the road is illuminated, when passing oncoming traffic in order to avoid dazzling drivers of both oncoming and passing vehicles. When stopping and parking at night on unlit sections of roads, the side lights must be turned on. When driving during daylight hours, low beam headlights must be turned on on motorcycles and mopeds, when driving in an organized transport convoy, when organized transportation groups of children on buses or on trucks, when transporting dangerous, large and heavy cargo, when towing motor vehicles. In addition, when driving during daylight hours, in order to indicate a moving vehicle, low beam headlights must be turned on when driving outside. settlements. Rules for using a spotlight, searchlight, fog lights, etc. have also been established.

Sound signals can be used only in two cases: a) to warn other drivers of the intention to overtake outside populated areas; b) when it is necessary to prevent a traffic accident.

The rules for the use of emergency warning lights and warning triangles are formulated in paragraph 7 of the Rules of the Road. Thus, the hazard warning lights must be turned on in case of: a) a traffic accident; b) forced stop in places where stopping is prohibited; c) blinding of the driver by headlights; d) towing (on a towed vehicle).

After turning on the hazard warning lights, as well as if they are malfunctioning or missing, a warning triangle must be immediately displayed in the event of an accident, as well as in case of a forced stop in places where it is prohibited.

3. The subject of the commented administrative offense is the drivers of vehicles.

4. From the subjective side, the administrative offense in question can be committed either intentionally or through negligence.

5. Cases of administrative offense are considered by the head of the traffic police, his deputy, the commander of a regiment (battalion, company) of the road patrol service (DPS), his deputy, traffic police officers with a special rank (Article 23.3).

Consultations and comments from lawyers on Article 12.20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

If you still have questions regarding Article 12.20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and you want to be sure of the relevance of the information provided, you can consult the lawyers of our website.

You can ask a question by phone or on the website. Initial consultations are held free of charge from 9:00 to 21:00 daily Moscow time. Questions received between 21:00 and 9:00 will be processed the next day.

Judicial practice under Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, appealing fines for sending weapons, violating the rules of transportation, transportation or use of weapons and ammunition for them

BABAYURT DISTRICT COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF DAGESTAN

SOLUTION
September 26, 2017 village of Babayurt
Babayurt District Court of the Republic of Dagestan, composed of presiding judge Shaipov A.A., with secretary Ch., having considered in open court with the participation of a representative FULL NAME1-FULL NAME4, acting by power of attorney dated August 29, 2017, the case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. . 20.12 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,
according to the complaint FULL NAME1 against the resolution of the employee of the Russian Guard of the LRR branch for the city of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyarsky, Tarumovsky, Nogaisky, Babayurtsky districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan dated March 5, 2017,

installed:

By a resolution of an employee of the Russian Guard of the LRR branch for the city of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyar, Tarumovsky, Nogai, Babayurt districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan dated March 5, 2017, FULL NAME1 was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, expressed in the fact that, on February 26, 2017 at 23 o’clock. 00 minutes in the village. Babayurt of the Babayurt district of the Republic of Dagestan violated the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them and was sentenced to an administrative fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles.
In the complaint, FULL NAME1 considers the decision made illegal and asks for the resolution FULL NAME6 dated March 5, 2017, by which he was held administratively liable in the form of a fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles, to cancel, to terminate the proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative liability, indicating in the justification of the complaint , that on September 5, 2017, from the letter of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Babayurt district No. 3/172604418922 dated August 31, 2017, he became aware that resolution No. 592975 had been issued against him in a case of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, issued on 03/05/2017 and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles. A copy of the said resolution was handed to him along with a letter from the Department of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Babayurt district No. 3/172604418922 on September 5, 2017. In resolution N 592975 we're talking about about the offense he committed, the punishment for which is provided for in Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, committed on February 26, 2017 at 23:00, but on that day and at that time he did not see a single inspector of the licensing and permitting work of the Department of the Russian Guard and no material was compiled regarding him on that day. He did not receive any notification about the time and place of the consideration of the administrative offense case, no one notified him and he did not receive any letters or notices. In this case, the case of an administrative offense against him, in accordance with the resolution, was considered on March 05, 2017 by an employee of the Russian Guard of the LRR Branch for the cities of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyarsky, Tarumovsky, Nogaisky, Babayurt districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan, FULL NAME6 on a day off - Sunday. He could not competently object and give explanations on the merits of the alleged offenses. Thus, the mandatory procedure for bringing him to administrative responsibility has been violated. During the proceedings on the case of an administrative offense, the procedural requirements established by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation were violated and this is the basis for canceling the contested decision of the official (FULL NAME6), since these violations are essential character and were not allowed to consider the case comprehensively, fully and objectively. As it became known, the resolution in the case of an administrative offense was drawn up on March 5, 2017. Consequently, the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility, established by Part 1 of Article 4.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, in this case expired on 05/05/2017. Under the above circumstances, the decision to bring him to administrative responsibility under Part 2 of Article 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and to impose an administrative penalty cannot be recognized as legal and justified and is subject to cancellation, and the proceedings in the case are terminated, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility.
At the court hearing, the representative FULL NAME4 supported the complaint in general according to the arguments and grounds set out in it and additionally explained that his principal FULL NAME1 did not transport and transport weapons, but carried weapons with him, having permission to carry and store them ROX N 12079120 valid under 22 March 2018, in accordance with paragraphs 62 and 63 of the Rules for the circulation of civilian and service weapons and ammunition on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1998 N 814 “On measures to regulate the circulation of civilian and service weapons and ammunition to him on the territory of the Russian Federation." In accordance with clause 77 of these Rules, citizens of the Russian Federation transport weapons in quantities of no more than five units and cartridges of no more than 1000 pieces on the basis of permits for storage (storage and carrying, storage and use, for import into the Russian Federation) weapons or licenses for the acquisition , collecting or exhibiting weapons. Therefore, in the actions of his principal FULL NAME1 there is no fact of the event of an administrative offense for which administrative liability is provided in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 20 12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. In addition, the protocol on the administrative offense did not indicate the exact time when the act was committed; it was added later, and there were corrections in the dates. The resolution does not indicate the place where it was drawn up, its principal was not notified of the time and place of consideration of the case, and a copy of the resolution was not sent to him.
At the court hearing, FULL NAME5 testified that on February 27, 2017, in evening time he went to the place of residence FULL NAME1 to check the conditions of his storage of weapons. During the inspection, he established that FULL NAME1 the conditions for storing weapons were violated, namely, at the time of the inspection, the metal safe in which the weapons were supposed to be stored was located in the yard, without a door. In this regard, he invited FULL NAME1 to the office to draw up a protocol under Part 4 of Art. 20.8 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. After some time, FULL NAME1 drove up to him in his car and showed him a weapon from a purse. Since FULL NAME1 transported the weapon not in a holster, but in a purse, which did not exclude access to it by unauthorized persons, he drew up a protocol under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - violation of the rules for transporting weapons. He sent these protocols for consideration to the head of the LRR department for the cities of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyarsky, Tarumovsky, Nogaisky, Babayurtsky districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan FULL NAME6
At the court hearing, an employee of the Russian Guard of the LRR branch for the cities of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyar, Tarumovsky, Nogai, Babayurt districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan FULL NAME6, having been duly notified of the time and place of the consideration of the case, did not appear.
Having familiarized itself with the arguments of the complaint, having listened to the explanations FULL NAME4, FULL NAME5 and having studied the materials of the case, the court considers that the decision in the case of an administrative offense is subject to cancellation and the proceedings in the case to be terminated.
From the protocol on an administrative offense drawn up in relation to FULL NAME7, it follows that on February 27, 2017 in the village. Babayurt, Babayurt district of the Republic of Dagestan, a violation of the rules of transportation of weapons was revealed, i.e. FULL NAME1 transported and carried a pistol MR -79 TM N 1333904409-13 with permission from ROX N 12079120 from 03/22/2013 to 03/22/2018 in a purse, that is, FULL NAME1 committed an offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
From the resolution on an administrative offense drawn up on March 5, 2017 in relation to FULL NAME7, it follows that he was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, expressed in the fact that, on February 26, 2017 at 23 o’clock. 00 minutes in the village. Babayurt of the Babayurt district of the Republic of Dagestan violated the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them and he was sentenced to an administrative fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles.
From the ROH permit N, valid until March 22, 2018, it is clear that the owner this permission FULL NAME1 has the right to store and carry a pistol MR -<адрес>4409.
The objective side of the second part of Article 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is a violation of the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them. The procedure for transporting weapons is regulated by Federal Law of November 13, 1996 N 150-FZ “On Weapons”, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1998 N 814 “On measures to regulate the circulation of civilian and service weapons and cartridges for them in the territory of Russian Federation", regulatory legal acts Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.
Thus, the protocol and the resolution on the administrative offense do not indicate specific data on the basis of which, in accordance with a specific norm of the Rules for the circulation of civilian and service weapons and ammunition on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1998 N 814 “ On measures to regulate the circulation of civilian and service weapons and ammunition for them on the territory of the Russian Federation.” The official came to the conclusion that FULL NAME1 transports and transports weapons and that his actions constitute an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation
Thus, the evidence available in the case does not allow us to reliably establish the presence of the incriminated act in the actions of FULL NAME1. There is no other evidence in the case that irrefutably indicates the fact of transportation and transportation of weapons. Thus, the totality of the evidence available in the case does not prove the guilt of FULL NAME1 in committing the offense imputed to him.
According to Part 4 of Art. 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, irremovable doubts about the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility are interpreted in favor of this person.
According to the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 1.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, ensuring legality in the application of administrative coercive measures presupposes not only the presence legal grounds for the application of administrative punishment, but also compliance with the procedure established by law for bringing a person to administrative responsibility.
In accordance with clause 6, part 1, art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, one of the circumstances excluding proceedings in a case of an administrative offense is the expiration of the provisions established by Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the limitation period for bringing to administrative responsibility. When checking compliance with the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility, it is necessary to take into account that the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation does not provide for the possibility of interruption given period.
The statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility established by Part 1 of Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, is two months.
As can be seen from the case materials, the circumstances that served as the basis for initiating an administrative violation case against FULL NAME1 took place on February 27, 2017, therefore, the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility established by Part 1 of Art. 4.5 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation, in this case expired on April 27, 2017.
According to the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 4.5 and clause 6, part 1, art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, proceedings in a case of an administrative offense cannot be started, and the started proceedings are subject to termination if the established statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility has expired.
Based on clause 3, part 1, art. 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, based on the results of consideration of a complaint against a decision in a case of an administrative offense, a decision is made to cancel the decision and terminate the proceedings in the case if at least one of the circumstances provided for in Articles 2.9, 24.5 of this Code is present, as well as if the circumstances on the basis of which are not proven a ruling was made.
In accordance with the provisions of Art. Art. 1.5, 2.1, 24.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, within the framework of administrative proceedings, the question of a person’s guilt in committing an administrative offense, responsibility for which is established by the norms of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses or the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, is subject to clarification.
The resolution in the case of an administrative offense in relation to FULL NAME1 did not enter into legal force.
At the time of consideration of this case, the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility established by Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation has expired, the possibility of discussing issues of a person’s guilt in violating the legislation on the circulation of weapons, after the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to justice, is not provided for by the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Thus, the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative liability during the consideration of a complaint against an official’s decision is a circumstance that excludes the possibility of considering the case by a judge.
In connection with the above, the arguments of the complaint that the official’s decision was made with an incorrect determination of the circumstances relevant to the case and an improper assessment of the evidence are subject to rejection as unfounded.
Based on the above, guided by Articles 30.2 - 30.8 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses,

The complaint, FULL NAME1, will be satisfied.
The resolution of the employee of the Russian Guard of the LRR branch for the city of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyarsky, Tarumovsky, Nogaisky, Babayurtsky districts of the Office of the Russian Guard for the Republic of Dagestan dated March 5, 2017, by which FULL NAME2 was brought to administrative liability in the form of a fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles, to cancel, to terminate the proceedings in the case in due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility,
The decision comes into force from the date of its adoption.

According to the complaint about the post-renewal under Art. 20.12 part 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

In case No. 12-1038/11

Accepted Cherdaklinsky District Court (Ulyanovsk region)

1. Judge of the Cherdaklinsky District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region Ulanov A.V.,
2. with the participation of representative Ermolaev A.Yu. - Stolyarov S.Yu.
3. under secretary Mironova A.E.,
4. having considered in open court the complaint of Ermolaev A.Yu. on the Resolution of the head of the OOP of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia “Cherdaklinsky” dated October 21, 2011 on the involvement of Ermolaev A.Yu. to administrative liability under the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

5. Installed:

6. By the resolution of the head of the OOP of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia "Cherdaklinsky" dated October 21, 2011, Ermolaev A.Yu. was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and was given an administrative penalty in the form of a fine in the amount of 1,000 rubles.
7. Disagreeing with the said Resolution, Ermolaev’s representative A.Yu. filed a complaint in court, in support of which he indicated that Ermolaev owns several types of weapons for which he has the appropriate permits. Rules for handling firearms and ammunition, including the rules for transporting and handling firearms with a rifled barrel, he is aware of, since he has more than 10 years of experience as a hunter and is a member of two hunting societies. During the entire period of ownership rifled weapons They did not allow any violations of the legislation of the Russian Federation on weapons, administrative violations related to the rules for storing weapons and hunting.
8. On October 20, 2011, during an inspection by inspector X* A.S. weapons and ammunition belonging to him, the carbine was stored separately from the ammunition in two cases, while the carbine was in an unloaded state, cartridges for the specified weapon were stored in the original packaging separately from the carbine. This fact was reflected by him in his explanations to the protocol in the presence of numerous witnesses. Conclusion of violation by Ermolaev A.Yu. rules for the transportation of weapons and ammunition does not correspond to reality and is not confirmed by anything.
9. He considers the decision made against him in the case of an administrative offense to be cancelled, and asks that the proceedings in the case be terminated.
10. At the court hearing, Ermolaev’s representative A.Yu. - Stolyarov S.Yu. supported the arguments of the complaint, gave similar testimony set out in the application and asks to recognize protocol No.... dated October 20, 2011, issued by the inspector of the ULRR of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the Ulyanovsk region regarding Ermolaev A.Yu. as illegal.
11. Resolution of the head of the PLO of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia “Cherdaklinsky” dated October 21, 2011, by which Ermolaev A.Yu. was found guilty under the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and was sentenced to a fine of 1,000 rubles - cancel, the case was terminated.
12. At the court hearing, witness X* A.S. - ULRR inspector of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the Ulyanovsk region, explained that on October 20, 2011, he took part in the raid together with forestry workers. In the evening, they discovered a UAZ car moving across the field, which they stopped. A dead boar was found inside the car, after which they began to check the documents of those in the car. When he began to check Ermolaev’s weapon, he took the gun out of the case and, after reloading, pulled out the cartridge and put it in his pocket. Believes that the cartridge was live. He did not remove this cartridge. He drew up a protocol for the seizure of the cartridge, but he then threw it away and did not attach it to the case materials.
13. Subsequently, an operational investigation team was called in, which began to interview people in the UAZ and process the seizure of the guns. He did not take Ermolaev’s gun into his hands; the investigative task force was engaged in confiscating the gun. As a result of the measures taken, he drew up a protocol against Ermolaev and the witnesses signed it.
14. Witness M* S.Yu. He testified to the court that on October 20, 2011, he took part in a raid together with police officers as a public ranger. In the evening, they discovered a UAZ car moving across the field, which they stopped. A dead boar was found inside the car, after which police officers began checking documents and interviewing people in the UAZ. Arriving at the Cherdaklinsky District Department of Internal Affairs, at the request of the police officers, he signed a report stating that one of the hunters had a loaded weapon. He himself was not an eyewitness to the presence of a cartridge in Ermolaev’s gun.
15. Witness D* V.N. testified to the court that on October 20, 2011, he took part in the raid together with police officers as a forestry employee. They were divided into two groups. In the evening, the second group discovered a UAZ car moving across the field, which was stopped. After some time, they arrived at the place of detention. Police officers inspected the guns and interviewed the hunters. He himself was not an eyewitness to the discovery of cartridges in Ermolaev’s gun; he signed the report at the request of the police officers.
16. After listening to the testimony of the participants in the trial and examining the materials of the case, the court comes to the following conclusion.
17. According to the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, violation of the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them entails the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand to one thousand five hundred rubles.
18. From the contested decision in the case of an administrative offense it follows that the witnesses (attesting witnesses) in this offense are M* S.Yu. and D* V.P. who, as they explained in court, were not eyewitnesses to the finding of a cartridge in the gun belonging to Ermolaev, signed the report only at the request of the police officers.
19. In accordance with the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it follows that:
20. 1. A person is subject to administrative liability only for those administrative offenses in respect of which his guilt has been established.
21. 2. A person against whom proceedings are being conducted for an administrative offense is considered innocent until his guilt is proven in the manner prescribed and established by a decision of the judge, body, or official who examined the case that has entered into legal force.
22. 3. A person brought to administrative responsibility is not required to prove his innocence, except for the cases provided for in the note to
23. 4. Irremovable doubts about the guilt of a person brought to administrative responsibility shall be interpreted in favor of this person.
24. According to the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, material evidence in a case of an administrative offense means the instruments or objects of an administrative offense, including the instruments or objects of an administrative offense that have retained its traces.
25. Physical evidence, if necessary, is photographed or recorded in another established way and attached to the case of an administrative offense. The presence of material evidence is recorded in the protocol on an administrative offense or in another protocol provided for by this Code.
26. According to the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it follows: that 1. Seizure of things that were instruments of committing or subjects of an administrative offense, and documents that have the value of evidence in a case of an administrative offense and discovered at the scene of the commission of an administrative offense or during a personal search, search of things on an individual , and inspection of the vehicle, is carried out by the persons specified in Articles 27.2, 27.3, 28.3 of this Code, in the presence of two witnesses.
27. 2. Seizure of things that were instruments of committing or subjects of an administrative offense, and documents that have the value of evidence in a case of an administrative offense and discovered during an inspection of the territories, premises and goods, vehicles and other property belonging to a legal entity, as well as the corresponding documents, is carried out by the persons specified in Article 28.3 of this Code, in the presence of two witnesses.
28. 4. If necessary, when seizing things and documents, photography, filming, video recording, and other established methods of recording material evidence are used.
29. 6. The protocol on the seizure of things and documents contains information about the type and details of the seized documents, the type, quantity, and other identification features of the seized items, including the type, brand, model, caliber, series, number, and other identification features weapons, the type and quantity of ammunition.
30. However, when examining protocol No.... dated October 20, 2011, in the column “attached to the protocol,” the seizure protocol is indicated and subsequently crossed out. As explained by the ULRR inspector of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the Ulyanovsk region Kh* A.S., he drew up a protocol for the seizure of the cartridge, but he then threw it away and did not attach it to the case materials, which indicates improper collection and recording of evidence.
31. In addition, during the examination of the rejected material after the shooting of the wild boar, no evidence was established about the presence of a cartridge in Ermolaev’s gun, including when drawing up a protocol for examining the scene of the incident.
32. Thus, the protocol No.... dated October 20, 2011, available in the case materials, issued by the inspector of the ULRR of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the Ulyanovsk Region regarding A.Yu. Ermolaev cannot be evidence of a violation of the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition.
33. In this regard, the court considers that Ermolaev A.Yu is guilty of committing an administrative offense under

1. Transfer of weapons -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred to one thousand rubles with or without confiscation of weapons.

2. Violation of the rules for transporting weapons and ammunition for them -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand to one thousand five hundred rubles.

3. Violation of the rules for the use of weapons and ammunition for them -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand five hundred to three thousand rubles or deprivation of the right to acquire and store or store and carry weapons for a period of one to two years.

Comments to Art. 20.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. This article ensures that citizens and organizations comply with the ban on the transfer of weapons established by Art. 6 of the Federal Law of December 13, 1996 N 150-FZ “On Weapons” (as amended and supplemented), as well as implementation in accordance with Art. Art. 24 - 25 of this Federal Law and regulatory legal acts of the Government of the Russian Federation on the rules for the use, transportation, transportation of weapons and ammunition for them.

2. The object of the commented administrative offense is relations in the field of ensuring public order and public safety.

3. The objective side of the offense is characterized by the action associated with the transfer of weapons, violation of the relevant rules for the use, transportation, transportation of weapons and ammunition for them.

For example, in accordance with clause 66 of the Rules for the circulation of civilian and service weapons and ammunition on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1998 N 814 (as amended and supplemented), it is prohibited to use technically faulty weapons and cartridges whose shelf life, storage or use has expired, except in cases of research work and testing or inspection technical condition weapons. The same Rules establish that for the transportation of weapons and ammunition, legal entities are required to ensure that consignments of firearms in an amount of more than 5 units or cartridges in an amount of more than 400 pieces are escorted along the route by guards of at least 2 people armed with firearms, in agreement with internal authorities cases at the place of registration of weapons and ammunition, route of movement and type of transport, transport weapons and ammunition in original packaging or in special containers, which must be sealed or sealed (clause 69). After concluding contracts for the transportation of weapons and ammunition, carriers are required to prepare receipts, expenses and accompanying documents in the manner established by the relevant federal executive authorities in agreement with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia (clause 73).

It should be taken into account that the illegal transportation of weapons, their main parts, and ammunition is classified as a crime under Part 1 of Art. 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

4. The subject of this offense is an individual who has reached the age of 18 (Article 13 of the Federal Law “On Weapons”), as well as a legal entity.

5. From the subjective side of wine legal entity recognized in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 2.1 of the Code, and the violation committed an individual, characterized by a deliberate form of guilt.

6. Cases of administrative offenses are considered by officials of internal affairs bodies (police) (Article 23.3). In addition, under Parts 1 and 3 of this article, such cases are considered by judges in cases where officials of internal affairs bodies (police), if necessary, decide on the issue of imposing an administrative penalty in the form of confiscation or paid seizure of weapons, transfer them to a judge for consideration ( Part 2 Article 23.1).

Protocols on administrative offenses are drawn up by officials of internal affairs bodies (police) (Part 1 of Article 28.3).

7. It must be borne in mind that Federal Law No. 398-FZ of December 28, 2010 introduced the following changes to Part 3 of the commented article, which come into force on July 1, 2011: alternative administrative punishment in relation to the fine is the deprivation of the right to acquire and store or store and carry weapons, and the paid confiscation of weapons and ammunition, related to additional penalties, is excluded from the list of administrative sanctions (from July 1, 2011, Article 3.6 of the Code is repealed).

Because of this, taking into account the provisions of Art. 3.8 of the Code, from July 1, 2001, officials of internal affairs bodies (police) will refer cases of these offenses to judges for consideration if it is necessary to resolve the issue of imposing punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to acquire and store or store and carry weapons (Part 2 Art. 23.1).