Stun Gun & Taser Defence Lawyers

Stun Guns and Sprays: What is Legal?

Stun Guns ("Taser")

In Spain, the sale and possession of stun guns is PROHIBITED for individuals, even at home. Only specially authorized officials can carry them. Buying a taser online or in Andorra and bringing it to Spain constitutes the crime of possession of prohibited weapons (Art. 563 CP), punishable by 1 to 3 years' imprisonment. A point that generates many cases is that online purchase does not legalise the device: even if it is legal in the country of origin, in Spain it is a prohibited weapon, and shipments are usually intercepted at customs. The possession is, moreover, an autonomous offence: not even its use in a situation of self-defence removes the possession crime, which is assessed independently of any injury offence.

Self-Defense Sprays

Defence sprays occupy an intermediate and often misunderstood position. Pepper sprays (oleoresin capsicum) of low concentration are legal only if:

• They are officially approved for sale.
• Sold in authorized outlets (and you are of age).
• If you buy a non-approved spray abroad, possession is illegal (administrative sanction or crime depending on composition).

By contrast, sprays of greater capacity or those containing CS gas (tear gas) are unlawful and their possession may constitute a crime. Even with a legal spray, its improper use against a person may amount to an injury offence, so the legality of the product does not equal impunity in its use.

Extendable Batons

Extendable batons, leaded or similar, can only be used by authorized officials and security guards on duty. For a private individual, they are a prohibited weapon and possession can constitute a crime. The defence against this type of charge rests on three main lines: the prohibition error (a reasonable belief, when buying freely in another country, that the device was legal); the absence of real danger of the object (discharged, very low power or a non-functional replica); and the context of prior threats that motivated the acquisition for self-protection which, although it does not exclude the possession, may affect the individualisation of the penalty.

The Criminal-Administrative Boundary: the Core of the Defence

Not every irregularity involving a weapon or a self-defence device amounts to a crime. Spanish law draws a distinction between two planes that police reports often blur: the offences in Articles 563 to 570 of the Criminal Code and the administrative infringement under Organic Law 4/2015 of 30 March on the protection of public safety. The line separating these planes is narrow and frequently decisive. Carrying a non-prohibited bladed item outside the home, minor documentary irregularities with a regulated firearm, or possessing a non-homologated defence spray may fall within the administrative penalty regime rather than the criminal one, with radically different consequences for the person under investigation.

The technical key lies in correctly classifying both the conduct and the seized object. The administrative procedure is subsidiary to the criminal one: only where the facts do not constitute a crime does the sanction under Law 4/2015 apply. A first line of work, therefore, is to examine whether the device or weapon is in fact listed as prohibited in the Weapons Regulation (Royal Decree 137/1993), whether the elements of the criminal offence are present, and whether the unlawfulness reaches the criminal threshold or remains a mere administrative breach. A well-founded reclassification can turn a charge under Article 563 into an administrative file, avoiding a criminal record and a prison sentence.

This task demands rigorous analysis of the regulatory catalogue, of the weapon categories, and of the health authority's homologation of sprays intended for private citizens. The defence must contrast the police report against the technical rules in force, because a mistaken cataloguing of the object distorts the entire classification of the facts. Where the report starts from a flawed premise about the nature of the weapon, the rest of the charge is compromised, and that is precisely where a specialised defence concentrates its effort from the investigation stage onward.

Ballistic Expert Evidence and the Weapon's Operability

In weapons possession and trafficking offences, expert evidence is central, and it is ordinarily produced by the Weapons and Explosives Intervention unit of the Guardia Civil. Its report establishes the weapon's category, its regulatory classification and, above all, its operability. This last point is essential: the courts consistently require that a regulated firearm be capable of firing, that is, in working condition, for unlicensed possession to fall within Article 564. A weapon that has been deactivated, rendered useless, or is substantially incapable of performing its function may fall outside criminal reproach.

The expert examination must cover the state of preservation, fitness to discharge, the presence or absence of factory marks and serial numbers, and whether these have been altered or erased, a circumstance that aggravates the penalty under Article 564.2. With electrical incapacitation devices, the report clarifies whether the apparatus has real harmful capacity and whether it falls among those prohibited for private citizens by the Weapons Regulation. The defence may request a counter-expert report, seek expansion of the official report, or challenge the chain of custody of the seized object where there are doubts about its traceability.

Disputing the operability, the cataloguing, and the evidential integrity of the weapon is not a secondary matter; it frequently defines the outcome of the proceedings. An expert opinion showing that the object is not fit for the purpose the offence requires, or that its regulatory classification is debatable, opens the door to acquittal or to a more lenient reclassification. For this reason it is decisive to review the Intervention unit's report critically before trial and, where appropriate, to prepare a party-appointed expert report that subjects its conclusions to cross-examination.

Procedure, Competent Court and Limitation Periods

Jurisdiction to try these offences is distributed according to the penalty. The unlawful weapons possession offences in Articles 563 and 564, whose maximum penalty does not exceed five years, are tried before the Criminal Court (Juzgado de lo Penal), while the deposit of war weapons under Articles 566 and 567, or the deposit or possession of explosive substances and devices under Article 568, carrying higher penalties, falls to the Provincial Court (Audiencia Provincial). A common misconception should be dispelled: these matters are not within the competence of the National Court (Audiencia Nacional), unless there is established connection with terrorism. Pinpointing the competent court at the outset avoids nullities and delays.

The procedure passes through the ordinary stages of investigation and trial. During the investigation the weapons expert report is produced, the person under investigation is examined, and the legal classification is delimited; this is the ideal moment to raise the boundary with the administrative breach and to marshal exculpatory evidence. The intermediate stage allows the propriety of opening the oral trial to be challenged, and the trial itself definitively fixes the proven facts and the legal characterisation. Each phase offers defence opportunities that should be seized without delay.

Limitation is governed by Article 131 of the Criminal Code. Offences whose maximum penalty does not exceed five years, such as those in Articles 563 and 564 and the basic forms of deposit of regulated weapons, become time-barred after five years. The deposit of war weapons or explosives, punished with a penalty above five years, becomes time-barred after ten. Verifying the date of commission and the running of the period is an elementary but sometimes decisive check, because limitation extinguishes criminal liability and must be raised as soon as its conditions are met.

Mitigation Under Article 565, Plea Agreements and Effects on the Weapon

Article 565 provides a specific and highly valuable avenue for mitigation: judges and courts may reduce the penalty by one degree where the circumstances of the act and of the offender show the absence of any intention to use the weapons for unlawful purposes. This provision allows the courts to address possession linked to collecting, family inheritance, documentary oversight, or non-aggressive use, far removed from any offensive purpose. Establishing the weapon's destination and context, as well as the personal history of the person under investigation, is essential for this reduction to apply.

Alongside this mitigation, the general circumstances of the Criminal Code that may concur, such as reparation, confession, or undue delays, come into play, as does the possibility of reaching a plea agreement where criminal reproach is unavoidable. A realistically negotiated agreement can translate into a measured penalty that, kept within moderate limits, opens the door to suspension of the custodial sentence for penalties not exceeding two years, having regard to the absence of a record and to personal circumstances. Each scenario calls for an individualised strategy, weighing the prospects of acquittal against those of reducing the sentence.

Beyond the penalty, the proceedings entail material consequences for the object: the precautionary seizure of the weapon or device during the case and, where applicable, its confiscation as an instrument of the offence, with the consequent permanent loss. Administrative effects may also follow, such as the denial or revocation of weapons licences and permits. A complete defence anticipates these matters, contests the propriety of confiscation where the object is lawfully held or unconnected to the act, and coordinates the criminal response with its administrative repercussions to fully protect the position of the person affected.