Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 11-80-11 (2026)

Authority Reserved to Attorney General to Bring or Settle Certain Lawsuits Concerning Firearms, Ammunition, Etc.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The authority to bring or settle any lawsuit in which the state has an exclusive interest or right to recover against any firearm or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer, and the authority to bring or settle any lawsuit on behalf of any governmental unit created by or pursuant to an act of the Legislature or the Constitution of Alabama of 2022, or any department, agency, or authority thereof, for damages, abatement, injunctive relief, or other equitable relief resulting from or relating to the design, manufacture, marketing, or lawful sale of firearms or ammunition, or both, shall be reserved exclusively to the Attorney General, by and with the consent of the Governor. This section shall not prohibit a county or municipal corporation from bringing an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision or local governmental authority.

(Act 2000-762, p. 1744, §1; Act 2013-283, p. 938, §1.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2013–2015 · leading case: Tulley v. City of Jacksonville, 199 So. 3d 779 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tulley v. City of Jacksonville, 199 So. 3d 779 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “Code 1975, and a corresponding provision in former § 11-80-11, Ala.Code 1975. Tulley’s challenge to the punishment provision of the ordinance, however, is not the constitutional, void-for-vagueness challenge he presented to the trial court and to this Court; rather, his argument…”

Tulley v. City of Jacksonville, 199 So. 3d 812 (Ala. 2015). · cites it 2× “Code 1975, and former § 11-80-11, Ala.Code 1975 (amended effective August 1, 2013), because, he argued, the- City could punish Tulley only to the extent that the State could punish him.”

Lambert v. Escambia Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 199 So. 3d 751 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “s follows: 1) that the phrase “unauthorized weapon” as contained in Board Policy Number 826 was vague and did not provide notice that a lawfully owned firearm was unauthorized; 2) that Board Policy Number 826 imper-missibly infringed upon Lambert’s Second Amendment right to bear…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.