When cops kill civilians lawfully armed under the Second Amendment, they are often protected from liability by the legal doctrine called qualified immunity.
Actually, one could and should add that Deputy Sylvester and the courts also stripped Andrew Scott of his 5th Amendment not "be deprived of life ... without due process of law".The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed [the decedent Andrew] Scott's right to have a gun ...
None of that mattered, in the end. It was trumped by [Deputy] Sylvester’s claim that he was protected by qualified immunity, a controversial legal doctrine the Supreme Court created 50 years ago to shield police and other government officials from civil liability for actions undertaken on the job.
In her decision, [federal judge] Conway determined that Sylvester was legally justified to use deadly force because Scott was holding a gun, and that the officer was thus entitled to immunity. Conway’s decision was later upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The courts' rulings meant, in effect, that Scott gave up his Fourth Amendment rights when he exercised his Second Amendment rights,
Cases like these are why some gun rights advocates want qualified immunity to be reined in. “These cases are rare, but they shouldn’t happen at all. When they do happen, law enforcement should be held liable,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a Bellevue, Washington-based group that filed a brief in support of Mauck and the Scott family’s failed attempt to appeal their case to the Supreme Court. Gottlieb said police officers should not be able to cite the mere presence of a gun as a threat that justifies the use of deadly force.
Another gun rights group, the Firearms Policy Coalition, based in Sacramento, California, also favors reform of qualified immunity, Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut told Reuters.