To the Editors:

Every so often in the progression of change for the future an issue emerges that clearly illustrates the cultural differences of the "typical" New Yorker. In today's rhetoric the NY SAFE Act has emerged as such an issue.

Rural NYers are familiar and comfortable with guns. For the most part we do not feel threatened by gun ownership and collectibility. It simply is a part of our heritage and viewed as our right. However, urban and suburban NYers have a completely opposite viewpoint. Guns are not part of their lives and gun ownership has a mystique that sees guns as threatening, dangerous and violent; that sees gun owners as a group of "wild crazies" and extremists.

Rural NYers, for the most part, feel personally and culturally threatened. The NY SAFE is, rightly or wrongly, seen as attacking fundamental rights under the 1st and 2nd Amendment; and that particular viewpoint has been politicized by one political party vs another political party crossing party lines based on geographic location.

The focus of anger has been Governor Cuomo and the emotional backlash against him is intense among rural NYers. He has emerged and been targeted unfairly in my view as the focal point of their anger. It is amazing to me as I look at the Act and its passage into law where the role of the NYS Senate (Dean Skelos-R-majority leader [final vote 43 yes/18 no]) and Assembly (Sheldon Silver-D -majority leader [final vote 104 yes/43 no]) is barely referred to by those attacking the Act.

Basic checks and balances in our governmental system say the Governor can propose any kind of legislation but it is meaningless without the support of the majority leaders and a majority of the Senators and Assembly representatives voting in favor of the proposed legislation to get it to his desk to be signed into law. It is that "minor" point that has gotten lost in the rhetoric and often histrionic protests that has occurred throughout the state.

And so the protestors are seen in different lights. One perspective (rural) sees them as a last stand, an honorable group vigorously protecting our rights. The other perspective (urban/suburban) sees the same protestors as almost "no-Neanderthals" who live in a past that no longer exists.

Personally, I favor this Act overall. There are parts that obviously need adjusting as there are with every monumentally changing legislation. I would hope that those changes be made; it is up to our legislative representatives to initiate and support those changes. If there are parts are unconstitutional then the protocol to challenge in the Court is the people's right and duty; it is the Court's responsibility to make examine and make a clear judgment. Again a successful process of checks and balances that has been the rule for over 200 years.

In the end, as a rural NYer, I resent the condescending viewpoint of my urban/suburban cousins. We are not ignorant unthinking 'crazies'. I ask that they listen to us respectfully and I urge my rural compatriots to listen to them. We do live in different worlds. So in my opinion, this issue will not go away until the people have had their say, the legislature will have worked through any problems they believe need fixing and the courts have ruled.

Sallie Brothers, St. Lawrence County Legislator D-Norfolk