Skip to content Skip to navigation

SCCY Holster Class Action Lawsuit

image of a J4 tactical holster

            This class action lawsuit claims that the use of SCCY holsters in combination with SCCY firearms poses an unreasonable danger of accidental discharge.

            The plaintiff in this lawsuit, Patrick Springer, is a resident of Birmingham, Alabama and is an avid gun enthusiast.  On April 2, 2016, Springer purchased a new SCCY model CPX-2 handgun from an authorized, licensed retailer in Birmingham for $269.00 plus sales tax.  On the same day, he purchased a new J4 Tactical holster labeled for use with his new SCCY firearm for $29.99 plus sales tax.  A few weeks later, on April 23, Springer attempted to holster his SCCY CPX-2.  While trying to do so, the inner pinch point of the J4 Tactical holster came into contact with the trigger of the gun, causing it to fire and strike Springer in the leg, seriously injuring him.

            Among the handgun models SCCY sells is the CPX-1, a hammer-fired, polymer frame double action only (DAO) semiautomatic pistol chambered in 9×19mm Parabellum. The CPX-1 is a compact firearm that feeds from a staggered column, removable magazine.  It is a locked breech design that uses an aluminum receiver set inside the polymer grip housing and attached with steel pins.  It uses a slide and barrel machined from 416 stainless steel.  It is equipped with a slide stop and locks open when the last round is fired. The handgun has an ambidextrous manual safety that is frame mounted.  SCCY designed the pistol with an internal hammer and has a double action trigger pull.  SCCY also manufactures a CPX-1 variant called the CPX-2. The CPX-2 eliminates the external manual safety found on the CPX-1. Like the CPX-1, the CPX-2 relies on the double action only (DAO) trigger pull, but requires 8.5 to 9 pounds of pressure, to help prevent unintentional discharge. A firing pin spring and low-mass hammer are designed to purportedly prevent discharge if the handgun is dropped.

            J4 Tactical manufactured and sold holsters purported to be specifically designed for use with the SCCY CPX-1 and CPX-2 firearm models. The packaging of the holsters is emblazoned with the words “TAYLOR-MADE FOR SCCY” and contains the SCCY name, logo, website and street address. The packaging further states, “Precision contours provide a perfect fit for reliable retention & smooth draw.” Finally, the front of the packaging describes the holster as a “CPX SERIES HOLSTER” that “FITS BOTH CPX-1 AND CPX-2 PISTOLS” and bears the SCCY Industries name and logo.  To maintain a grip on the weapon, J4 Tactical holsters employ a design consisting of two pinch points where the holster narrows near the trigger area. Although they are designed, as well as packaged and advertised, for use with SCCY models CPX-1 and CPX-2, the inner pinch point (which is longer and narrower than the outer point) of J4 Tactical holsters can come into contact with the trigger of the firearm and cause an accidental discharge.

            Despite the above dangers, neither SCCY nor J4 Tactical provided any warning the above dangers or that holstering a loaded CPX-1 or CPX-2 in a J4 Tactical holster may result in an accidental discharge.

            Based on the facts of the case, the plaintiff in this lawsuit alleges the following violations:

  • Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
  • Negligence
Article Type: 

Free Case Evaluation

Fill out the information for a FREE and prompt case evaluation.

About you

Additional Information

Latest Tweets

Join Us on Facebook