Road, intercity, highway... All this is romantic at the same time, especially, but at the same time hard and tiring. Everything is tiring: long hours on the road, constant tension, attention to signs and markings, watching the most expensive and self-ambushing policemen. It’s good if someone blinks their headlights, thereby preventing an unexpected meeting. You yourself probably blinked more than once at passing passers-by, trying to signal a posted post. However, such signaling, that is, blinking headlights, turns out to be illegal. For this, they may well be stopped, scolded and fined or not!? You say, “Yes, well! Can't be!". Or maybe it can't... Let's try to understand this issue in the article.

Traffic rules on the prohibition of blinking high beams

So, we take a book of traffic rules and look for. Although it is possible and virtually, that is, on the Internet - SDA. In fact, this document will be key in order to find any flaws in the behavior of the driver. So the entire section at number 19 "Use of external lighting devices and sound signals" of the SDA is dedicated to the rules for using light and sound devices. Let's quote the main thing.

19.2 high beam must be switched to near:
V settlements if the road is lit;
at an oncoming siding at a distance of not less than 150 m before vehicle, as well as at more, if the driver of an oncoming vehicle by periodically switching the headlights shows the need for this;
...
19.5. During daylight hours, all moving vehicles must turn on dipped beam headlights or daytime running lights to identify them.
...
19.11. To warn of overtaking, instead of a sound signal or together with it, a light signal may be given, which is a short-term switching of the headlights from dipped to high beam.

Here we have collected points that just provide for the facts of switching light from far to near or vice versa. Note that nothing is said here about short-term switching on, switching off the light. That is, in fact, blinking with light is not reflected in any way as a forbidden fact. From this we can conclude that if the inspector stops the driver because he blinked the light, then he will have to look not for objective - direct facts of traffic violations, but for some alternative variations. If the inspector decides to issue a fine.

Article of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for a fine for blinking high beams

In fact, the inspector does not have logical and direct conclusions that allow him to issue a fine for blinking a light. This is not the absence of light, these are not non-working lights. The only thing that can somehow and indirectly tighten the blinking of headlights is Article 12.20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. An article with a rather general wording about the violation of the use of lighting devices.

Penalty for blinking high beams (light switching)

Now we take the document - the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and read article 12.20 from it.

Violation of the rules for using external lighting devices, sound signals, emergency signaling or an emergency stop sign - entails a warning or imposition administrative fine in the amount of 500 rubles.

This is the only article of the Code of Administrative Offenses RF that can be applied. However, as we have already said, there are no direct facts indicating that blinking is a violation of traffic rules.

How can I dispute a fine for blinking high beams

If you come across, frankly, not an adequate traffic cop, then you can avoid a fine for blinking with high beams like this. First, if you enter into a predictable and diplomatic dialogue with a police officer, then you can always mention that blinking a high beam in an alternative case can be punished not by a ruble, but by a warning. All under the same article 12.20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Secondly, blinking is essentially allowed when overtaking. Perhaps there was such a situation. See above paragraph 19.11 of the SDA.
Thirdly, if this does not help, then let the inspector write in the protocol which paragraph of the traffic rules you violated. This will not be easy to do. Since, in fact, blinking with a high beam is not limited in any of the traffic rules. As a result, such a protocol can be challenged in the same traffic police by filing an appeal.
In the end, if, after all, some not quite normal traffic cop issued a fine, then today's legislation allows you to pay for violations under Article 12.20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation with a 50 percent discount. To do this, you must pay the fine no later than 20 days from the date of the decision.

Summarizing the blinking high beams on the highway

Here I would like to recall the proverb that the road to hell is paved with good deeds. Don't try to please everyone and everything. If you see that there is a truck or bus in front of you, then you definitely should not blink. Since truckers, normal truckers, almost never exceed the speed limit. And the driver of regular buses even more so. If they get caught, then it seems to us for the good, since these citizens should be the most responsible on our roads.
As for the rushing cars, it is possible to warn such people. Even if the inspectors notice you and stop you, they will not find the point that you cannot switch briefly from near to far in the traffic rules.

Question-answer on the topic "Penalty for blinking high beams"

Question: Can I get a fine for blinking a light on the highway to warn of a police ambush?
Answer: No. There is no such condition in the SDA, unless the inspector decides that the driver has violated some related rule from clause 19 of the SDA.

Full text of Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation with comments. New current edition with additions for 2019. Legal advice on Article 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

1. Shipment 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 transportation, transportation of weapons and cartridges 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 cartridges for them -
shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand five hundred to three thousand rubles or the deprivation of the right to acquire and keep or keep and carry weapons for a term of one to two years. June 22, 2007 No. 116-FZ; as amended by Federal Law No. 398-FZ of December 28, 2010.

Commentary on Article 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

1. This article ensures the implementation by citizens and organizations of 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 the regulatory legal acts of the Government of the Russian Federation of the rules for the use, transportation, transportation of weapons and cartridges 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 an action related to 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 paragraph 66 of the Rules for the circulation of civilian and service weapons and cartridges for them on the territory Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1998 N 814 (as amended and added), it is prohibited to use technically faulty weapons and cartridges, the expiration date, storage or use of which has expired, except for cases of research work and testing or verification technical condition weapons. The same Rules establish that in order to transport weapons and cartridges, legal entities are obliged to provide escort of consignments of firearms in the amount of more than 5 units or cartridges in the amount of more than 400 pieces along the route by guards in the amount of at least 2 people armed firearms, coordinate with the internal affairs bodies at the place of registration of weapons and cartridges the route and mode of transport, transport weapons and cartridges in their original packaging or in special containers that must be sealed or sealed (clause 69). Carriers, after concluding agreements on the transportation of weapons and ammunition, are obliged to issue income and expenditure 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, ammunition is qualified as a crime under Part 1 of Art. 222 of the Criminal Code.

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

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

6. Cases of administrative offenses are considered by officials of the internal affairs bodies (police) (Article 23.3). In addition, according to parts 1 and 3 of this article, such cases are considered by judges in cases where officials of the internal affairs bodies (police), if it is necessary to resolve the issue of imposing an administrative penalty in the form of confiscation or seizure of weapons for compensation, transfer them to the judge for consideration ( part 2 article 23.1).

Protocols on administrative offenses are drawn up by officials of the internal affairs bodies (police) (part 1 of article 28.3).

7. It must be borne in mind that the Federal Law of December 28, 2010 N 398-FZ in part 3 of the commented article made the following changes, which come into force on July 1, 2011: an alternative administrative penalty in relation to a fine is deprivation of the right for the acquisition and storage or storage and carrying of weapons, and the reimbursable seizure of weapons and ammunition related to additional punishments is excluded from the list of administrative sanctions (from July 1, 2011, Article 3.6 of the Code is recognized as invalid).

Therefore, subject to the provisions of Art. 3.8 of the Code, from July 1, 2001, officials of the internal affairs bodies (police) will refer cases of these offenses to judges for consideration if it is necessary to resolve the issue of imposing a penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to acquire and store or store and carry weapons (part 2 article 23.1).

Consultations and comments of lawyers on Article 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

If you still have questions on Article 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and you want to be sure that the information provided is up to date, you can consult the lawyers of our website.

You can ask a question by phone or on the website. Initial consultations are free of charge from 9:00 to 21:00 Moscow time daily. Questions received between 21:00 and 09:00 will be processed the next day.

On a complaint against a decision under Art. 20.12 part 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

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 the representative Ermolaev A.Yu. - Stolyarov S.Yu.
3. under the secretary Mironova A.E.,
4. examined in open court complaint Ermolaeva A.Yew. on the Decree of the head of the PLO of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia "Cherdaklinsky" dated 21.10.2011 on the involvement of Ermolaev A.Yu. to administrative responsibility under the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

5. Installed:

6. By the decree of the head of the PLO 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 he was sentenced to an administrative penalty in the form of a fine of 1000 rubles.
7. Disagreeing with said Resolution, the representative Ermolaeva A.Yew. appealed to the court with a complaint, in support of which he indicated that Yermolaev owns several types of weapons for which there are appropriate permits. He knows the rules for handling firearms and ammunition, including the rules for transporting and handling firearms with a rifled barrel, because he has more than 10 years of experience as a hunter, and is a member of two hunting societies. All time of ownership rifled weapons no violations of the legislation of the Russian Federation on weapons, administrative violations related to the rules of keeping weapons and hunting, they were not allowed.
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 a discharged state, the cartridges for the specified weapon were stored in their 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 about the violation Ermolaev A.Yew. rules for the transportation of weapons and ammunition is not true and is not confirmed by anything.
9. He considers the decision issued against him in the case of an administrative offense to be canceled, requests the proceedings to be terminated.
10. At the hearing the representative Ermolaeva A.Yew. - Stolyarov S.Yu. supported the arguments of the complaint, gave similar testimony set out in the statement and asks to recognize protocol No. .... dated 10.20.2011, issued by the inspector of the ULRR of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the Ulyanovsk region regarding Yermolaeva A.Yu. - illegal.
11. Decree of the head of the PLO of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia "Cherdaklinsky" dated 10/21/2011, 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 1000 rubles - to cancel, to stop the proceedings.
12. At the hearing witness X* A.S. - Inspector ULRR UMVD RF for the Ulyanovsk region, explained that 20.10.2011, he took part in the raid together with the workers of the forestry. In the evening, they found a UAZ car moving across the field, which they stopped. A dead wild boar was found inside the car, after which they began to check the documents of the people in the car. When he began to check Ermolaev's weapon, he took a gun out of the case and, after reloading, pulled out a cartridge and put it in his pocket. Believes that the cartridge was live. He did not seize this cartridge. He drew up a protocol for the seizure of the cartridge, but he then threw it away, did not attach it to the case file.
13. Subsequently, an operational investigative group was called in, which began to question the people in the UAZ and deal with the registration of the seizure of guns. He himself did not take Ermolaev's gun in his hands, the investigative-operational group was engaged in the seizure of the gun. As a result of the measures taken, he drew up a protocol in respect of Ermolaev and the witnesses signed it.
14. Witness M* S.Yu. showed to the court that on 10/20/2011 he took part in the raid together with police officers as a public huntsman. In the evening, they found a UAZ car moving across the field, which they stopped. A dead wild boar was found in the passenger compartment of the car, after which the police officers began to check the documents and interrogate the persons in the UAZ. Arriving at the Cherdaklinskoye District Department of Internal Affairs, at the request of the police officers, he signed the protocol 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* VN testified to the court that on 10/20/2011 he took part in the raid together with police officers as a forestry worker. They were divided into two groups. In the evening, the second group found a UAZ car moving across the field, which was stopped. After some time they arrived at the place of detention. Police officers inspected guns and interviewed hunters. He himself was not an eyewitness to the discovery of cartridges in Yermolaev’s gun, he signed the protocol at the request of the police officers.
16. After listening to the testimony of the participants in the process, examining the materials of the case, the court comes to the following.
17. According to the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, violation of the rules for the transportation, transportation of weapons and cartridges 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 (witnesses) in this offense are M* S.Yu. and D* V.P. who, as they explained in court, were not eyewitnesses to the presence of a cartridge in the gun belonging to Yermolaev, signed the protocol 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 shall be subject to administrative liability only for those administrative offenses in respect of which his guilt has been established.
21. 2. A person in respect of whom proceedings are being conducted on a case of an administrative offense shall be considered innocent until his guilt is proved in the manner prescribed and established by the effective Resolution of the judge, body, official who considered the case.
22. 3. A person brought to administrative responsibility is not obliged 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, physical evidence in a case of an administrative offense is understood as the instruments of committing or objects of an administrative offense, including the instruments of committing or objects of an administrative offense that have retained its traces.
25. Material evidence, if necessary, is photographed or recorded in another established way and attached to the case of an administrative offense. An entry on the presence of physical evidence shall be made in a 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 tools or subjects of an administrative offense, and documents that are relevant evidence in a case of an administrative offense and found at the scene of an administrative offense or during a personal search, search of things held by 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 tools or subjects of an administrative offense, and documents that are relevant evidence in the case of an administrative offense and found during the inspection of the territories belonging to the legal entity, premises and goods, vehicles and other property in its possession, as well as relevant documents, 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 fixing material evidence are used.
29. 6. The protocol on the seizure of things and documents shall contain information on the type and details of the seized documents, on 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 10/20/2011, in the column "attached to the protocol", it is indicated and subsequently crossed out - the protocol of seizure. As explained by the inspector of the ULRR 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 was not attached to the case file, which indicates improper collection and consolidation of evidence.
31. In addition, when examining the abandoned material, on the fact of shooting a wild boar, no evidence was found about the presence of a cartridge in Ermolaev’s gun, including when drawing up a protocol for examining the scene.
32. Thus, the protocol No. ... dated 10/20/2011, which is available in the case file, issued by the inspector of the ULRR of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the Ulyanovsk region in relation to Ermolaeva A.Yu., cannot be evidence of a violation of the rules for the transportation, transportation of weapons and cartridges.
33. In this regard, the court considers that the guilt of Yermolaev A.Yu. in committing an administrative offense under

1. Shipment 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 the weapon.

2. Violation of the rules of transportation, transportation of weapons and cartridges to them -

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

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

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand five hundred to three thousand rubles or the deprivation of the right to acquire and keep or keep and bear arms for a term of one to two years.

Commentary on Art. 20.12 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation

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

Legal entities have the right to transport their weapons and ammunition on the basis of permits issued by the internal affairs bodies in the manner established by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.

To transport weapons and ammunition, legal entities are required to:

- coordinate with the internal affairs bodies at the place of registration of weapons and cartridges the route and mode of transport;

- equip vehicles in accordance with the requirements for the transport of dangerous goods;

- ensure that consignments of firearms in the amount of more than 5 units or cartridges in the amount of more than 400 pieces are escorted along the route by guards in the amount of at least 2 people armed with firearms. Sportsmen, coaches and other employees of sports organizations and educational institutions engaged in sports or physical culture and health-improving and sports and pedagogical work that are associated with the use of sporting firearms, and appointed responsible for the transportation of such weapons and (or) cartridges;

- transport weapons and ammunition in their original packaging or in special containers, which must be sealed or sealed.

During transportation, the weapon must be in a discharged state separately from the cartridges.

When transporting consignments of weapons or cartridges, vehicles must be technically sound, the possibility of a visual review of the cargo and free access strangers to him.

In cases of transportation of weapons and ammunition by a convoy of more than 2 vehicles, their protection is provided by an escort group of at least 3 people armed with firearms, following on a specially designated vehicle.

If signs of opening a vehicle carrying weapons and cartridges, damage to containers, violations of seals or seals, the senior armed guard is obliged to immediately report this to the internal affairs bodies, draw up an act, take necessary measures to establish the causes of the incident and ensure the protection of the scene.

Transportation of weapons and ammunition across the territory of the Russian Federation is carried out on a contractual basis legal entities, whose charters provide for the provision of services for the transportation of weapons and ammunition (hereinafter referred to as carriers), on the basis of transportation permits issued by internal affairs bodies in the manner determined by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.

The procedure for sending and transporting weapons and cartridges for them is regulated by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 21.07.1998 N 814 "On measures to regulate the circulation of civilian and service weapons and cartridges for them on the territory of the Russian Federation", Order of the Federal Military Service of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation of 30.11.1999 N 120/971 "On approval of the Instructions on the procedure for transportation by aircraft civil aviation weapons, ammunition and cartridges for it, special means transferred by passengers for temporary storage for the period of the flight.

The objective side of the offense is characterized by an action related to the transfer of weapons, violation of the relevant rules for the use, transportation, transportation of weapons and ammunition for them.

2. The subject of this offense is an individual who has reached the age of 18, as well as a legal entity.

From the subjective side, the commission of this offense is characterized by an intentional form of guilt.

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

BABAYURTOV DISTRICT COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF DAGESTAN

SOLUTION
September 26, 2017 Babayurt village
Babayurtovsky District Court of the Republic of Dagestan, as part of the presiding judge Shaipov A.A., with secretary Ch., having considered in open court with the participation of a representative of FULL NAME1-FULL NAME4, acting by proxy 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 Offenses,
on the complaint of FULL NAME1 against the decision of an employee of the National Guard of the LRR branch in the city of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyar, Tarumovsky, Nogai, Babayurtovsky districts of the Office of the Russian Guard in the Republic of Dagestan dated March 5, 2017,

installed:

By a decision of an employee of the National Guard of the LRR branch in G. Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyar, Tarumovsky, Nogai, Babayurtovsky districts of the Office of the Russian Guard in the Republic of Dagestan dated March 5, 2017, FULL NAME 1 was found guilty of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, expressed in the fact that he, February 26, 2017 at 23 h. 00 minutes in Babayurt, Babayurtovsky district, Republic of Dagestan, violated the rules for transporting and transporting weapons and cartridges for him, and he was sentenced to an administrative fine of 1,500 rubles.
In the complaint, FULL NAME1 considers the decision made unlawful and requests decision FULL NAME6 dated March 5, 2017, by which he was brought to administrative responsibility in the form of a fine of 1500 rubles to cancel, to stop the proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility, indicating in the justification of the complaint that on September 05, 2017, from a letter from the Russian MIA Directorate for the Babayurtovsky District No. 3/172604418922 dated August 31, 2017, he became aware of the decision No. 592975 against him in the 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 the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of 1,500 rubles. A copy of the said decision was handed to him along with a letter from the Russian Department of Internal Affairs for the Babayurtovsky District No. 3/172604418922 on September 05, 2017. Decree N 592975 refers to an offense committed by him, 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, however, on that day and at that time, he did not see a single inspector of licensing and permitting work of the Department of the Russian Guard and no material was compiled in relation to him that day. He did not receive notice of the time and place of the hearing of the case on an administrative offense, no one notified him, and he did not receive any letters or notices. In this case, the case of an administrative offense against him, according to the decision, was considered on March 05, 2017 by an employee of the National Guard of the LRR Department for the city of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyar, Tarumovsky, Nogai, Babayurtovsky districts of the Office of the Russian Guard in the Republic of Dagestan FULL NAME6 on a day off - Sunday. He could not competently object and give explanations on the merits of the imputed offences. Thereby, mandatory order bringing him to administrative responsibility violated. In the proceedings on 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 the cancellation of the contested decision of the official (FULL NAME6), since these violations are of a significant nature and did not allow a comprehensive, complete and objective consideration of the case. As it became known, the decision in the case of an administrative offense was drawn up on March 05, 2017. Consequently, the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility, established by Part 1 of Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, 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 the imposition of an administrative penalty cannot be recognized as lawful and justified and is subject to cancellation, and the proceedings on the case are terminated due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility.
At the hearing, the representative of FULL NAME4 supported the complaint as a whole for the arguments and grounds set forth in it and additionally explained that his principal FULL NAME1 did not carry out the transportation and transportation of weapons, but carried weapons with him, having permission to carry and store ROH N 12079120 valid for 22 March 2018, in accordance with paragraphs 62 and 63 of the Rules for the circulation of civilian and service weapons and cartridges for them 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 cartridges to him on the territory of the Russian Federation. In accordance with paragraph 77 of these Rules, citizens of the Russian Federation carry out the transportation of weapons in the amount 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) of weapons or licenses for the acquisition , collecting or exhibiting weapons. Therefore, in the actions of his principal FULL NAME1 there is no fact of an administrative offense event, for which administrative responsibility is provided in accordance with Part. 2 Article. 20 12 of the 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, there are corrections in the dates. The decision does not indicate the place of its preparation, its principal was not notified of the time and place of the consideration of the case, a copy of the decision was not sent to him.
At the hearing, FULL NAME5 testified that on February 27, 2017, in the evening, he went to the place of residence of FULL NAME1 to check the conditions for storing weapons. During the check he found that FULL NAME1 violated the conditions of storage of weapons, namely at the time of checking the metal safe in which the weapon was supposed to be stored, was 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 of the 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 weapons not in a holster, but in a purse that did not exclude access to it by unauthorized persons, they drew up a protocol under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - violation of the rules for the transportation, transportation of weapons. He sent these protocols for consideration to the head of the LRR department for the city of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyar, Tarumovsky, Nogai, Babayurtovsky districts of the Department of the Russian Guard in the Republic of Dagestan FULL NAME6
At the hearing, an employee of the Russian Guard of the LRR branch for the city of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyar, Tarumovsky, Nogai, Babayurtovsky districts of the Office of the Russian Guard in the Republic of Dagestan FULL NAME6, having been duly notified of the time and place of the case, did not appear.
After reviewing the arguments of the complaint, after listening to the explanation FULL NAME4, FULL NAME5 and having studied the case file, the court considers that the decision in the case of an administrative offense is subject to cancellation, and the proceedings are terminated.
From the protocol on an administrative offense drawn up in relation to FULL NAME7 it follows that February 27, 2017 in with. Babayurt, Babayurt District, Republic of Dagestan, a violation of the rules for the transportation, transportation of weapons, i.e. FULL NAME1 transported-carried a pistol MP -79 TM N 1333904409-13 with the permission of ROHA N 12079120 from 22.03.2013 to 22.03.2018 in a purse, that is, FULL NAME1 committed an offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
From the decision on an administrative offense drawn up on March 5, 2017 in relation to FULL NAME7, it follows that he was found guilty of an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, expressed in the fact that he, February 26, 2017 at 23 h. 00 minutes in Babayurt, Babayurtovsky district, Republic of Dagestan, violated the rules for transporting and transporting weapons and cartridges for him, and he was sentenced to an administrative fine of 1,500 rubles.
From the permission of the ROHA N valid until March 22, 2018, it can be seen that the owner of this permission, FULL NAME1, has the right to store and carry a pistol MP -<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 the transportation, transportation of weapons and ammunition for them. The procedure for the transportation, transportation of weapons is regulated by the Federal Law of November 13, 1996 N 150-FZ "On Weapons", the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1998 N 814 "On Measures to Regulate the Turnover of Civilian and Service Weapons and Cartridges for It on the Territory Russian Federation”, normative legal acts of the 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 the specific norm of the Rules for the circulation of civilian and service weapons and cartridges for them on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated July 21, 1998 N 814 " On measures to regulate the circulation of civilian and service weapons and cartridges for them on the territory of the Russian Federation. The official came to the conclusion that FULL NAME1 carries out the transportation and transportation of weapons and the presence in his actions of an administrative offense, under Part. 2 Article. 20.12 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation
Thus, the available evidence in the case does not allow us to reliably establish the presence in the actions of FULL NAME1 of the composition of the incriminated act. Other evidence irrefutably testifying to the fact of transportation and transportation of weapons is absent in the case. Thus, the totality of evidence available in the case wine FULL NAME1 in committing the offense imputed to him is not proven.
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 h. 1 Article. 1.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, ensuring the rule of law in the application of measures of administrative coercion implies not only the existence of 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 paragraph 6 of part 1 of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, one of the circumstances excluding the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense is the expiration of the established 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 must be borne in mind that the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation does not provide for the possibility of interrupting this period.
The statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility, established h. 1 Article. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 20.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, is two months.
As seen from the case file, the circumstances that gave rise to the initiation of an administrative offense 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 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses, in the present case expired on April 27, 2017.
According to the provisions of h. 1 Article. 4.5 and paragraph 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 initiated proceedings are subject to termination in the event of the expiration of the established statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility.
Based on paragraph 3 of part 1 of 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 on an administrative offense, a decision is made to cancel the decision and terminate the proceedings in the case in the presence of at least one of the circumstances provided for in Articles 2.9, 24.5 of this Code, as well as in the absence of evidence of the circumstances on the basis of which decision 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 the guilt of a person in committing an administrative offense, the 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 decision in the case of an administrative offense in relation to FULL NAME1, has not entered into 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 provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation do not provide for the possibility of discussing questions about the guilt of a person in violating the legislation on the circulation of weapons, after the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to responsibility.
Thus, the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility for the time of consideration of a complaint against the decision of an official is a circumstance that excludes the possibility of considering the case by a judge.
In connection with the foregoing, the arguments of the complaint that the official's decision was made with an incorrect definition of the circumstances relevant to the case and an improper assessment of the evidence must be rejected as untenable.
Based on the foregoing, guided by Articles 30.2 - 30.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation,

Complaint FULL NAME1 satisfy.
The decision of the employee of the National Guard of the LRR branch in the city of Kizlyar, Sukhokumsk, Kizlyar, Tarumovsky, Nogai, Babayurtovsky districts of the Office of the Russian Guard in the Republic of Dagestan dated March 5, 2017, by which FULL NAME2 was brought to administrative responsibility in the form of a fine of 1500 rubles, cancel, the proceedings are terminated in connection with the expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility,
The decision comes into force from the date of its adoption.