ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO MEET REGISTRATION DEADLINES (RE-REGISTRATION) OF DOMESTICALLY MANUFACTURED DEVICES INTENDED FOR FIRING CARTRIDGES, LOADED WITH RUBBER OR SIMILAR PROJECTILES OF NON-LETHAL ACTION

Abstract

Purpose. To identify the nature of the gap in the legal regulation of administrative liability for violations by owners of the deadlines for registration (re-registration) of non-lethal weapons, to determine its causes and consequences for the activities of the National Police’s firearms control units, and to formulate proposals for improving the provisions of Article 192 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Methods. The methodological basis of the study consists of a combination of general scientific and specialized legal methods. Using the dialectical method, the study reveals the interconnection between the legally established obligation of the owner to register (re-register) the relevant device in a timely manner and the absence of administrative liability for failure to comply with this obligation. The formal-legal method was applied to analyze the provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and the departmental regulatory acts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The systemic-structural and comparative-legal methods were used to compare Article 192 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses with related administrative tort provisions and to determine the place of the devices under study within the system of subjects of the relevant offenses. Methods of analysis, synthesis, and generalization made it possible to identify a regulatory gap, assess its legal consequences, and formulate conclusions. Using the method of legal modeling, proposals were developed to improve the title and operative part of Article 192 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. Results. This article examines the issue of administrative liability for violations of the deadlines for registration (re-registration) of domestically manufactured devices designed to fire cartridges loaded with rubber projectiles or projectiles with similar properties that are non-lethal. Based on a systematic analysis of the provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and relevant subordinate regulatory acts, a gap in administrative liability has been identified, the essence of which lies in the statutory establishment of a corresponding legal obligation in the absence of a specific provision that would establish administrative liability for its failure to comply. It has been demonstrated that the current version of Article 192 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses does not cover violations of the deadlines for registration (re-registration) of the specified devices, since the legislature has not explicitly included them within the scope of the administrative offense defined therein. It has been demonstrated that extending the application of this provision by analogy or through an expansive interpretation would contradict the principles of legality, legal certainty, and predictability in administrative offense regulation. The negative consequences of the identified gap for the effectiveness of state control, the legal discipline of owners, and the activities of the National Police of Ukraine’s units responsible for controlling the circulation of weapons have been identified. Conclusions. Based on the results of this study, the study justifies the need for systematic changes to the title and provisions of Article 192 of the Code of Administrative Offenses by including the relevant devices in the list of items constituting administrative offenses and aligning its terminology with the current institutional division of powers in the licensing system. Implementing the proposed changes will make it possible to eliminate the identified regulatory gap, ensure consistency in law enforcement practice, and enhance the effectiveness of state control over the circulation of items subject to the licensing system.