Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter raises safety concerns after cemetery shooting; commissioners and sheriff weigh options
Summary
A public commenter reported a Memorial Day incident in which a person discharged a rifle at gophers on cemetery grounds. The cemetery board failed to pass no-discharge motion; the commenter and commissioners discussed Montana Code 45-8-111 and potential enforcement by the sheriff.
During public comment on Aug. 5, cemetery board member and resident John Rbrand summarized recent cemetery-board minutes describing a Memorial Day shooting incident in which an individual discharged a rifle while attempting to control a gopher infestation. Rbrand said the cemetery board considered motions (posting 'no discharge of weapons' signs and a newspaper notice about the gopher problem) but the no-discharge motions failed or lacked a second at board meetings.
Rbrand said he spoke with Deputy Rex Morgan and with Logan Olsen about possible legal avenues; he referenced a public-nuisance statute (cited during the discussion as Montana Code 45-8-111 / '45-8 d111') and noted that deputies believed such statutes might apply only if a significant number of people were endangered (for example, during a funeral). The commenter argued cemetery users and workers should feel safe and urged the county to investigate approaches other districts use.
Sheriff and county staff presence in the meeting led to discussion about enforcement limits and options. Commissioners advised coordinating with the sheriff’s office and researching other cemetery districts’ practices. One practical remedy the cemetery board is testing is a gas-exhaust device to fumigate gopher holes; board members also proposed public outreach requesting people notify the cemetery board before taking pest control actions.
The transcript records the complaint, the cemetery board minutes and the exchange about possible statute application; no formal county order or prohibition was adopted at the commissioners’ meeting and enforcement options were left to the sheriff’s office and further research.
