>> WITH MOVEMENT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL TOWARD A NARROW GUN REFORM BILL, A LOOK AT HOW INDIVIDUAL STATES LIKE NEVADA ARE TAKING ACTION ON THEIR OWN.

THAT'S THIS WEEK ON "NEVADA WEEK."

>> SUPPORT FOR NEVADA WEEK IS PROVIDED BY SENATOR WILLIAM H. HERNSTADT AND ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING SPONSORS.

>> WELCOME TO "NEVADA WEEK."

I'M AMBER RENEE DIXON.

FOLLOWING THE MASS SHOOTING AT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN UVALDE, TEXAS IN WHICH THE GUNMAN USED AN AR-15-STYLE WEAPON TO KILL 19 CHILDREN AND TWO TEACHERS, NEVADA STATE TREASURER ZACH CONINE SAID HE WOULD BE DIVESTING $89 MILLION IN STATE FUNDS FROM COMPANIES THAT SELL OR MANUFACTURE ASSAULT-STYLE WEAPONS.

WE SPOKE WITH HIM RECENTLY ABOUT HIS DECISION TO SELL OFF THE STATE'S INVESTMENTS IN THESE COMPANIES.

TREASURER, YOU ARE TAKING A STANCE AND YOU ARE MAKING WHAT SOME MIGHT CONSIDER A BOLD MOVE IN DIVESTING STATE FUNDS FROM COMPANIES THAT SELL OR MANUFACTURE ASSAULT-STYLE WEAPONS.

WHAT WENT INTO THIS DECISION, WHY DO IT?

>> I DON'T CONSIDER IT A BOLD MOVE.

I WOULD CONSIDER IT A PRUDENT MOVE.

IN INVESTING AS THE STATE'S CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER THE THING WE LOOK AT MOST IS RISK.

WITH COMPANIES THAT MANUFACTURE OR RETAIL ASSAULT-STYLE WEAPONS, WE SAW TWO KINDS OF RISK WE JUST COULDN'T AVOID ANYMORE, WE COULDN'T IGNORE IT.

ONE WAS FINANCIAL RISKS.

THESE COMPANIES DO NOT PERFORM BETTER THAN THEIR PEERS IN THE SPACE, AND THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL RISKS THAT ARE COMING FROM LITIGATION.

WE SEE STATES LIKE NEW YORK PASSING LITIGATION LAWS, HIGH FLYERS FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

WE THINK THE CHANCE OF THEM GOING DOWN IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE CHANCE OF THEM GOING UP.

WE DON'T LIKE THAT INVESTMENT FOR THE STATE.

THE SECOND PIECE IS MORAL RISK.

I MENTIONED, AS STATE CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, THE THING WE SPEND ALL OUR TIME DOING IS TRADING A LITTLE BIT OF OPPORTUNITY NOW FOR A LITTLE MORE OPPORTUNITY LATER.

THAT'S WHAT INVESTING IS.

SAY I'M NOT GOING TO GET THAT CUP OF COFFEE SO I'VE GOT MORE MONEY FOR RETIREMENT DOWN THE ROAD.

THAT'S THE DECISION.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF ANY OF THAT IF THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE SAVING FOR IN THE FUTURE AREN'T AROUND FOR IT?

WHAT OPPORTUNITIES DO THOSE KIDS AND THOSE TEACHERS HAVE IN TEXAS?

WHAT OPPORTUNITIES DID THE PEOPLE WHO WERE KILLED AT OCTOBER 1 HAVE?

WHAT OPPORTUNITIES ARE OUT THERE?

AND AS THE STATE'S CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO HAVE THE MORAL RISK OF SUPPORTING BUSINESSES THAT ARE KILLING PEOPLE.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO SOMEONE WHO SAYS THE STATE TREASURER SHOULD NOT HAVE A SOCIAL ADVOCACY ROLE?

>> WELL, THE STATE TREASURER, WHEN HE'S NOT BEING THE STATE TREASURER, IS THE FATHER OF THREE KIDS, EIGHT-YEAR-OLD TWO 5-YEAR-OLDS.

THE STATE TREASURER HAD TO DROP HIS KIDS OFF AT SCHOOL THE NEXT DAY WITH TEARS IN HIS EYES.

MY WIFE AND I STOOD THERE, AS DID MANY OTHER PARENTS FOR ANOTHER HALF HOUR WONDERING IF WE'RE MAKING THE WRONG DECISION.

THE STATE TREASURER IS A NEVADAN BEFORE HE'S AN INVESTOR, AND WE'VE GOT TO BALANCE BOTH THOSE THINGS.

>> BACK TO THE FINANCIAL RISK.

YOU TALKED ABOUT POTENTIAL LITIGATION.

THERE ARE FEDERAL PROTECTIONS FOR GUN COMPANIES AGAINST LAWSUITS.

WE DID SEE RECENTLY WITH SANDY HOOK THAT REMINGTON HAD TO PAY THOSE FAMILIES A SETTLEMENT BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING DEALING WITH CONNECTICUT LAW AND THEM NOT MARKETING THEMSELVES IN A WAY THAT FOLLOWED THEIR LAW.

YOU REALLY THINK THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF LITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES HEADED IN THE DIRECTION OF GUN COMPANIES?

>> WELL, WE DO.

WE'VE SEEN 104, 105 MASS SHOOTINGS SINCE OCTOBER 1.

AND EACH ONE OF THOSE MASS SHOOTINGS IS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR LITIGATION.

AND STATES AROUND THE COUNTRIES ARE LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT WAYS HOW THEY CAN CUT DOWN ON GUN VIOLENCE, LITIGATION IS ONE OF THOSE TOOLS.

HERE'S ANOTHER THING.

EVEN IF THEY WIN ALL OF THOSE LAWSUITS, THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY MONEY TO DEFEND ALL OF THOSE LAWSUITS.

SOME THEY WILL SETTLE.

ALL OF THOSE ARE RISKS AGAINST THE UNDERLYING ASSETS.

WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE THOSE RISKS.

THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF COMPANIES THE STATE COULD INVEST IN.

THOUSANDS OF BONDS AND PIECES OF PAPER THE STATE COULD BUY.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO BUY ONES THAT DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF RISK.

>> HOW LIKELY WILL THERE BE INCREASED REGULATION ON THE SALE OF GUNS, YOU'RE BANKING ON THAT?

>> I THINK IN OUR WORLD WE'RE BANKING THAT THE UPSIDE IN THOSE COMPANIES IS LESS THAN THE DOWNSIDE IN THOSE COMPANIES.

RIGHT?

WE'RE LOOKING AT THE RISK IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST IN TRYING TO FIND A SAFER WAY THAT WE CAN ALL LIVE OUR LIVES AND SOME OF THAT COULD COME THROUGH EXTRA REGULATION IN TREASURER'S OFFICE WE DON'T WORK ON REGULATION; WE WORK ON RISK.

OUR FOCUS WILL BE HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT NEVADANS CAN GET AS MUCH OUT OF THEIR TAX DOLLARS AS POSSIBLE.

THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS WE'RE DOING IT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS WORKING ON THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME WE DEVELOPED A PROCESS THAT WOULD MAKE SURE THAT NEVADANS LOST NOT ONE CENT.

SO IF IT'S AN EQUITY HOLDINGS, WE'RE GOING TO SELL AT THE MARKET RATE.

EVERYTHING WE'VE FOUND SO FAR ON THE SCREEN, $89 MILLION OF THE 49 BILLION THAT WE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY MANAGE, HAS BEEN IN EQUITIES AND MUTUAL FUNDS, THINGS THAT ARE HIGHLY LIQUID, SO NO LOSS ON THAT FRONT.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, IF WE FIND ANYTHING ON THE BOND SIDE, ON THE FIXED INCOME SIDE, WE'RE GOING TO DO AN ANALYSIS.

THAT ANALYSIS VERY QUICKLY IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE WE'LL LOOK AT THE BOOK VALUE, WE'LL LOOK AT THE MARKET VALUE.

IF THE MARKET VALUE IS OVER THE BOOK VALUE, IN OTHER WORDS WE CAN SELL IT AT A PROFIT, WE'LL SELL IT OFF AT PROFIT.

IF NOT WE'LL HOLD UNTIL MATURITY, NEVER BUY IT AGAIN.

THERE'S NO MECHANIC THROUGH WHICH THE STATE CAN LOSE MONEY HERE.

>> THE TIMING MIGHT BE DIFFICULT OF DIVESTING.

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THERE'S A MASS SHOOTING AND STOCKS IN GUN COMPANIES WILL GO UP.

DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN.

BUT IT DOES HAPPEN.

HOW DO YOU TIME IT?

MAKE SURE YOU ARE NOT LOSING ANY MONEY FOR THE STATE BUT ALSO NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A MASS SHOOTING?

>> WELL, WE DIDN'T TIME IT.

WE JUST DID IT.

SO $89 MILLION SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF MONEY.

IN THE UNIVERSE OF EQUITY TRANSACTIONS -- >> YOU'VE DONE IT ALREADY.

>> IT'S DONE.

IT'S GONE.

>> THAT'S SIMILAR TO AN EXECUTIVE ORDER.

>> YEAH.

AND THAT'S THE THING.

THE TREASURER, AS THE CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER OF THE STATE, THAT'S A DECISION THAT WE GET TO MAKE.

AND ANY TREASURER WOULD GET TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

THE SAME DECISION OR A DIFFERENT ONE.

AND OVER THE YEARS WE'VE SEEN DIFFERENT TREASURERS BUY INTO COMPANIES OR NOT BUY INTO COMPANIES BASED ON HOW THEY FELT.

RISK IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY PERSONAL THING.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT BOTH THE MATH AND THE SORT OF OBJECTIVE THINGS AND YOU'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE SUBJECTIVE THINGS.

BUT THAT'S WHAT MAKES AN INVESTOR.

I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME.

I FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT OUR DECISION.

>> I THINK SOME PEOPLE WOULD BE SURPRISED TO KNOW THAT IF THEY HAVE A 401(K) WITH A TARGET DATE, IT'S LIKELY THAT THEIR PORTFOLIO INCLUDES SOME GUN COMPANIES.

>> I'M SO GLAD YOU BROUGHT THIS UP BECAUSE THIS IS SO IMPORTANT.

PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY OWN.

AND YOU CAN ASK.

YOU CAN ASK YOUR INVESTMENT MANAGER.

YOU CAN ASK YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR.

YOU CAN ACTUALLY DIG INTO THE UNDERLYING SECURITIES THAT YOU OWN, WHETHER IT'S A SPIDER, AN ETF OR SOMETHING ELSE, YOU CAN GET IN THERE, UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE COMPANIES.

AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM YOU'LL FIND THERE'S ANOTHER PRODUCT THAT'S ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME WITHOUT THOSE COMPANIES IN IT.

>> SO EXECUTIVE ORDER, $89 MILLION THAT'S BEEN DIVESTED.

THERE IS STILL ANOTHER CHUNK OF MONEY THAT'S NOT UNDER YOUR DIRECT CONTROL.

YOU CAN'T SAY YOU GOTTA DO THIS.

EXPLAIN THE COLLEGE SAVINGS PLAN AND HOW YOU ARE GOING TO GO ABOUT DIVESTING OR RECOMMENDING DIVESTING FROM THEM.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

NEVADA HAS ONE OF THE LARGEST COLLEGE SAVINGS PLANS IN THE COUNTRY.

WE'VE GOT ABOUT $39 BILLION UNDER MANAGEMENT.

THAT IS BECAUSE OUR PLANS ARE SO GOOD THAT PEOPLE COME IN FROM ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY TO INVEST IN THEM.

MANAGED BY MAJOR COMPANIES.

COMPANIES EVERYONE HAS HEARD OF VANGUARD AND WEALTHFRONT USAA FOR OUR VETERANS.

WE HAVE AMAZING PROGRAMS.

WE'LL REACH OUT TO THOSE MANAGERS, HAVE REACHED OUT TO THOSE MANAGERS, SAY WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ADDITIONAL TRANSPARENCY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVESTING IN THOSE COMPANIES.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE KNOW THEY'RE INVESTING IN COMPANIES THAT MANUFACTURE OR RETAIL ASSAULT-STYLE WEAPONS.

PEOPLE CAN MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES.

ALL WE WANT IS TO MAKE SURE NEVADANS AND EVERYONE INVESTED HERE IN NEVADA HAS ALL THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO MAKE THE DECISIONS THEY WANT.

>> THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN FORTUNE ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIVESTING.

QUOTE, THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE THAT A COMPANY'S SHARE PRICE CHANGES AS A RESULT OF DIVESTMENT CAMPAIGNS.

FOR EVERY INVESTOR WHO SELLS OFF SHARES OF THE COMPANY THEY FIND OBJECTIONABLE, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE WHO HAS NO ISSUE OF SNAPPING THEM UP AS LONG AS THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MONEY.

HOW EFFECTIVE DO YOU THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS?

ARE YOU TRYING TO HURT GUN COMPANIES FINANCIALLY?

>> WE'RE NOT TRYING TO HURT GUN COMPANIES FINANCIALLY.

WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP KIDS ALIVE.

LET'S BE VERY SPECIFIC HERE.

OUR WORK WAS TO PREVENT RISK TO NEVADANS.

MY PERSONAL FEELINGS, THE FACT THAT WE THINK THAT THERE'S A MORAL RISK THERE, THE FACT THAT WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE TO LIVE LIKE THIS IN THE UNITED STATES, THAT'S A SECONDARY FUNCTION.

IT'S A BENEFIT.

DON'T GET ME WRONG.

I'D DO IT AGAIN.

BUT THE REASON WE DID THIS IS BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO AVOID THE RISK OF THOSE COMPANIES.

I THINK DIVESTMENT DOES WORK.

WE'VE SEEN IT WORK IN CERTAIN PLACES.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF APARTHEID IN SOUTH AFRICA ANYMORE.

AND SO WE THINK THAT OUR WORK AND THE WORK OF OTHERS -- BECAUSE REMEMBER WE DIDN'T GET TO THIS FIRST.

NEW YORK CITY.

CONNECTICUT.

RHODE ISLAND.

MICHIGAN HAS JOINED THIS FIGHT.

CLARK COUNTY AT THEIR MEETING THE OTHER DAY TALKED ABOUT EXPLORING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM TO DIVEST.

THEY'RE CONDUCTING A SCREEN TO SEE WHAT'S OUT THERE IN THEIR INVESTMENTS.

I DON'T THINK THAT NEVADA'S $89 MILLION IS GOING TO MOVE THE NEEDLE BUT IF THERE'S OTHER STATES BIG PENSION FUNDS TO THINK ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY MAYBE IT WILL.

BUT EVEN IF IT DOESN'T, WE HAVE PREVENTED THE STATE FROM LOSSES THAT THE STATE DOESN'T NEED TO TAKE.

>> HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT OTHER -- YOU MENTIONED PENSIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, WITHIN THE STATE -- THAT THEY FOLLOW SUIT?

>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

WE'RE GOING TO MAKE OUR CASE AND THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISION AS THEY SHOULD.

IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT, I THINK, TO EVERYBODY IN MY BUSINESS THAT YOU DON'T TRY TO BACKSEAT DRIVE SOMEONE ELSE'S PORTFOLIO.

YOU GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE AND SEE IF THEY MAKE THE SAME DECISION.

>> THE STATE BOARD OF FINANCE DOES HAVE TO APPROVE THE NEW POLICIES.

YOU ALREADY TOOK CARE OF THE 89 MILLION BUT MOVING FORWARD, WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WOULD SAY NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO WITH WHAT YOU WANT?

>> I'D LIKE TO THINK THE STATE BOARD OF FINANCE IS GENERALLY PRETTY DEFERENTIAL TO THE STATE'S CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER.

WE SERVE ON THAT BOARD ALONGSIDE MY FRIEND THE GOVERNOR WHO HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR HOW HE FEELS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, CONTROLLER AS WELL AS TWO GOVERNOR APPOINTEES.

WE'LL HAVE A MEETING IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

BUT REMEMBER THAT'S A SECOND STEP TO CONTINUE THIS WORK ALONG THE WAY, THE THINGS WE'VE ALREADY DONE SO FAR HAVE ALREADY DIVESTED THE STATE FROM THE ASSETS WE FOUND.

>> WE DO HAVE A LOT OF GUN OWNERS HERE IN NEVADA WHO PROBABLY DO FIND THE VALUE IN THESE COMPANIES, IN THESE COMPANIES THAT MANUFACTURE ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS AND SELL THEM.

THEY MIGHT FIND THIS TROUBLING, YOUR MOVE.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THEM ABOUT YOUR STRATEGY?

>> WE'VE HAD A LOT OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS.

I'LL SAY NOT ONLY AM I A GUN OWNER IN THE STATE OF NEVADA BUT I'VE CARRIED A GUN PROFESSIONALLY, BACK WHEN I WAS AT THE GOLDEN NUGGET.

I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH GUNS.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH COMPANIES WHO ARE MAKING WEAPONS THAT EXIST ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF KILLING PEOPLE.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

WHEN WE'VE HAD THAT CONVERSATION I WALK THEM THROUGH THE MATH.

IF THEY'RE COMING AT IT FROM A MATHEMATICAL PLACE, A PLACE OF PURE ANALYTICAL OBJECTIVE PLACE, THEY GET THERE BECAUSE THE MATH'S THE MATH.

IF THEY'RE COMING AT IT FROM A PLACE OF MORALITY OR A FROM A PLACE OF GUNS OVER KIDS, I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND ON THAT.

AND THAT'S OKAY.

IT'S WHAT MAKES THE MARKET.

YOU DON'T EXPECT EVERYONE TO AGREE WITH YOU ALL THE TIME.

IF YOU DID, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GIVING THEM THE FULL STORY.

>> IN RESPONSE TO THE STATE TREASURER'S ACTIONS, NEVADA WEEK RECEIVED THIS STATEMENT FROM THE NEVADA FIREARMS COALITION.

QUOTE, WITH HIS DIVESTMENT IN FIREARMS-RELATED STOCKS, STATE TREASURER CONINE IS TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE IS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT VIOLENCE WITH GUNS.

THAT DIVESTMENT WILL HAVE ZERO IMPACT ON HUMAN VIOLENCE WITH GUNS, BUT IT LOOKS GOOD TO HIS VOTERS.

WHAT THIS INVESTMENT POLICY WILL DO IS HURT THE FINANCIAL RETURNS OF THE SILVER STATE'S INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO, WHICH HE IS LEGALLY OBLIGED TO HUSBAND AND GROW.

SINCE THE 2020 SUMMER RIOTS AND POLITICAL MOVES TO DEFUND POLICE, MORE AMERICANS ARE LOSING FAITH THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT THEM FROM VIOLENCE.

SALES OF FIREARMS HAVE RISEN DRAMATICALLY, ESPECIALLY AMONG WOMEN AND BLACK AMERICANS.

GREATER PROFITABILITY FOR FIREARMS COMPANIES TRANSLATES INTO A STRONG RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

THE TREASURER'S JOB IS TO BE A FIDUCIARY FOR THE TAXPAYERS OF NEVADA, NOT PLAY POLITICS WITH TAX DOLLARS, END QUOTE.

JOINING US NOW WITH HER TAKE ON THE STATE TREASURER'S DECISION TO DIVEST FROM COMPANIES THAT SELL OR MANUFACTURE ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS, IS KRISTY SCOTT.

OWNER OF BATTLE BORN AMMUNITION AND FIREARMS IN CARSON CITY.

KRISTY, THANKS FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> SO KRISTY, THE TREASURER HAS DIVESTED FROM THE LARGE PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES THAT SELL AND MANUFACTURE THESE ASSAULT-STYLE WEAPONS.

ONE MIGHT THINK THAT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON A SMALLER FAMILY-OWNED BUSINESS LIKE YOURS.

HOW TRUE IS THAT?

>> IT COMPLETELY HAS AN IMPACT ON MY BUSINESS.

ANYTIME SOMEONE USES THEIR POLITICAL OFFICE -- AND IT FRUSTRATES ME BECAUSE THE TREASURER'S OFFICE IS SUPPOSED TO OPERATE ON FACT AND IT'S A NONPARTISAN OFFICE -- BUT ANYTIME SOMEONE VERY PUBLICLY DIVESTS FROM -- AND I'LL SAY ASSAULT-STYLE WEAPONS -- IT PUTS A DARK MARK ON US AS IF WE ARE TRYING TO SELL THESE FIREARMS AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO HARM PEOPLE.

WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IF EVERY PERSON OWNED AN AR-15 TRIED TO DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL, THE COUNTRY WOULD KNOW IT.

THERE ARE PROBABLY TRILLIONS OF THESE FIREARMS IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC.

IF YOU TAKE THE PERCENTAGE OF TIMES THOSE GUNS HAVE BEEN USED IN A MASS SHOOTING AND COMPARED IT TO THE NUMBER OF THOSE FIREARMS ACTUALLY IN THE HANDS OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, YOU'LL FIND IT'S A VERY SMALL AMOUNT.

BACK TO HOW IT AFFECTS MY BUSINESS, IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THE ANTIGUN INDUSTRY -- I'M GOING TO CALL IT AN INDUSTRY BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT'S TURNED IN TO BE -- THEY'VE PUT MANY, MANY BUSINESSES OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET THE BANKING.

WE HAVE CHASE BANK THAT WON'T COME NEAR ANY FIREARMS BUSINESSES.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER LENDERS LIKE KABBAGE AND OTHER PLACES THAT WILL NOT LOAN MONEY TO ANY FIREARMS BUSINESSES.

SO THIS IS JUST ONE MORE CHIPPING AWAY AT THAT SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT THAT WE HAVE THAT IS GOING TO AFFECT ME ULTIMATELY QUITE A BIT.

>> AND THESE COMPANIES THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET LOANS FROM, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY MUST VIEW GUN COMPANIES NOW AS FINANCIALLY RISKY AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU, WHICH WOULD LEND ITSELF TO THE STATE TREASURER'S ARGUMENT.

>> WELL, I HAVE YET TO SEE THE NUMBERS.

HE SAYS FINANCIALLY RISKY, BUT WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

WHO IS HE -- WHAT NUMBERS CAN HE COME UP WITH THAT SHOW THAT GUN BUSINESSES ARE RISKY INVESTMENT BECAUSE I'VE GOT AN ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT FROM THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION THAT SHOWS THE NUMBER OF GUNS, THE NUMBER OF MONEY THAT WE PUT INTO THE STATE'S COFFERS AND THE NATIONAL COFFERS EVERY SINGLE YEAR BECAUSE OF THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS THAT LOVE TO USE THESE FIREARMS.

I HAVE ONE MYSELF.

THEY'RE USED IN A COMPETITION CALLED A THREE-GUN COMPETITION.

THEY WERE NOT DESIGNED JUST TO KILL PEOPLE.

I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY THAT OWNS ONE OR ANYONE THAT I'VE SOLD AN AR-STYLE FIREARM TO THAT HAS PURCHASED IT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KILL SOMEONE.

THAT'S TO ME A RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTION.

>> YOU DON'T PERSONALLY KNOW THEM, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO BE THE CHOICE WEAPON FOR MASS SHOOTERS.

>> I DISAGREE.

>> YOU DISAGREE.

WHY ARE YOU NOT WILLING TO GIVE UP AN AR-15 AND SUPPORT THAT BAN.

YOU USE ONE PERSONALLY, YOU SAID.

>> BECAUSE IT'S MY RIGHT TO OWN IT.

WHY AM I NOT WILLING TO GIVE IT UP?

I'M NOT GOING TO HARM ANYBODY WITH MY FIREARM.

AND WHAT DRIVES ME CRAZY IS NOT ONCE HAVE I HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT THE SHOOTER HIMSELF.

NOT ONCE.

HE'S TALKED ABOUT THE BAD GUN.

BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO OPERATE THAT FIREARM.

I DEAL WITH HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT COME THROUGH THIS STORE EVERY YEAR.

NOT ONE HAS EVER SAID TO ME OR EVEN INTIMATED THAT THEY WANTED TO USE THAT FIREARM IN A CRIME.

>> KRISTY -- >> IF THEY START.

>> ONE LAST QUESTION BECAUSE WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME, WHAT IS BUSINESS LIKE FOR YOU RIGHT NOW?

WHAT IS IT LIKE TO BE A GUN STORE OWNER IN THIS CLIMATE?

>> IT'S ROUGH IN OUR ECONOMY.

WHEN GAS IS ABOVE $6 A GALLON, PEOPLE DON'T HAVE MONEY TO DO ANY OF THEIR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

SHOOTING A GUN IS ONE OF THE FEW ACTIVITIES THAT YOU CAN DO THAT YOU HAVE TO FOCUS ON SHOOTING THE GUN AND YOU CAN'T THINK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON AT HOME, WHAT'S GOING ON AT WORK OR ANYTHING ELSE.

IT'S A VERY STRESS-RELIEVING THING TO GO OUT AND SHOOT.

AND I WILL PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEE YOU THAT MR. CONINE HAS NEVER SHOT AN AR.

>> KRISTY SCOTT, OWNER OF BATTLE BORN AMMUNITION AND FIREARMS IN CARSON CITY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

U.S.

GUN COMPANIES ARE FACING FURTHER PRESSURE FROM SEVERAL OTHER STATES AND FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY AS WELL.

EARLIER THIS YEAR ATTORNEY GENERALS FROM 13 STATES AND WASHINGTON D.C.

THREW THEIR SUPPORT BEHIND A LAWSUIT FROM MEXICO AGAINST SEVERAL U.S.

GUN MANUFACTURERS.

MEXICO IS SUING THE MANUFACTURERS FOR $10 BILLION ACCUSING THEM OF KNOWINGLY FACILITATING THE TRAFFICKING OF WEAPONS TO CRIMINALS IN MEXICO AND THUS FUELLING GUN VIOLENCE.

WITH ME TO EXPLAIN MEXICO'S STANCE IN THIS MATTER IS JULÁN ESCUTIA-RODRIGUEZ, CONSUL OF MEXICO IN LAS VEGAS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

YOU WROTE AN OPINION PIECE ON THIS LAWSUIT FOR THE LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL RECENTLY.

HELP US TO UNDERSTAND WHY U.S.

GUN COMPANIES ARE TO BLAME FOR THIS ISSUE IN MEXICO.

HOW ARE THEY KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY HELPING TRAFFIC WEAPONS INTO MEXICO?

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

THE GOVERNMENT OF MEXICO BELIEVES THAT THE MANUFACTURERS OF GUNS IN THE U.S. ARE NEGLIGENT AND ILLICITLY SELLING WEAPONS TO DRUG DEALERS AND OTHER CRIMINALS IN MEXICO.

THEY ARE ADVERTISING THEIR PRODUCT IN A WAY THAT IS ATTRACTIVE TO THEM.

THEY ARE USING COMMERCIAL PRACTICES THAT FACILITATE THE ILLICIT TRAFFIC TO MEXICO.

THEY ARE SELLING IN A WAY THAT IT IS NOT TRACEABLE.

THERE'S BULK SALES.

THERE'S STRAW PURCHASES.

THERE'S A CHAIN OF ILLICIT PRACTICES THAT ARE REALLY TROUBLESOME AND THAT ARE FUELLING VIOLENCE IN MEXICO.

>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW THEY'RE MARKETING THEM SPECIFICALLY FOR MEXICAN CITIZENS, WHAT ARE THOSE MARKETING CAMPAIGNS LIKE?

>> WELL, IT'S NOT FOR MEXICAN CITIZENS.

IT'S FOR MEXICAN AND OTHER CRIMINALS, THEY PRODUCE WEAPONS THAT ARE ATTRACTIVE TO THEM.

THEY INSCRIPT CERTAIN SAYINGS THAT ARE POPULAR.

THEY ARE PUTTING ROLES ON THEM.

THEY ARE MAKING THEM ATTRACTIVE.

AND OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE HIGH-POWER WEAPONS, WEAPONS OF WAR, THAT SHOULD NOT BE CROSSING THE BORDER TO MEXICO.

MEXICO HAS VERY STRICT LAWS ABOUT GUNS AND WEAPONS IN GENERAL.

ACTUALLY, THERE'S ONLY ONE SELLER OF GUNS IN MEXICO THAT IS THE MEXICAN ARMY.

AND A FEW PERMITS ARE ISSUED EVERY YEAR.

HAVING THIS MASSIVE FLOW OF WEAPONS TO MEXICO IS REALLY A PROBLEM TO US.

>> FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THAT MARKETING, MAYBE QUOTES FROM FAMOUS PEOPLE IN MEXICO'S HISTORY AND PICTURES MAYBE.

>> PICTURES.

HEROES OF OUR HISTORY ON THE GUNS.

SO THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THERE IS LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY FROM THESE COMPANIES, AND WE WANT CHANGE.

WE WANT CHANGE FOR THE PEOPLE OF MEXICO.

AND YOU KNOW THAT 12 MILLION MEXICANS LIVE HERE IN THE U.S. AND THEY HAVE FAMILIES BACK IN MEXICO.

SO THIS VIOLENCE IS AFFECTING NATIONALS FROM BOTH COUNTRIES.

>> NSSF, THE FIREARMS INDUSTRY TRADE ASSOCIATION CALLS THESE ALLEGATIONS BASELESS.

ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT SAID, "THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RAMPANT CRIME AND CORRUPTION WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS.

MEXICO'S CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ILLICIT DRUG TRADE, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, AND ORGANIZED CRIME CARTELS THAT PLAGUE MEXICO CITIZENS.

RATHER SEEKING TO SCAPEGOAT LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN BUSINESSES, MEXICAN AUTHORITIES MUST FOCUS THEIR EFFORTS ON BRINGING THE CARTELS TO JUSTICE."

WHAT ROLE OF RESPONSIBILITY DOES MEXICO HAVE IN ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE?

>> SO OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE BEEN TAKING MEASURES AGAINST DRUG TRAFFICKERS AND OTHER ORGANIZED CRIME ORGANIZATIONS FOR MANY YEARS.

ACTUALLY WE ARE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR MANY YEARS NOW.

WE LAUNCHED A NEW PROGRAM CALLED THE BICENTENNIAL UNDERSTANDING BY WHICH WE ARE PUTTING IN THE CENTER OF OUR EFFORTS THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER.

SO WE ARE DOING OUR PART.

AND THIS LAWSUIT IS JUST A PIECE IN ALL OF THIS PUZZLE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIX IN A WAY THAT IS SECURE AND SAFE FOR EVERYBODY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER.

>> AT THE MOMENT THE GUN COMPANIES HAVE FILED TO DISMISS THIS CASE.

THEY ARGUE THAT THE PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT WHICH HAS PROTECTED GUN COMPANIES FROM BEING HELD LIABLE IF THEIR PRODUCTS ARE USED IN A CRIME, IT HAS WORKED VERY WELL FOR THEM AND THEY USE THAT AS WHY THIS SHOULD BE DISMISSED.

HOWEVER, THE STATES THAT HAVE SIGNED ONTO THIS ARE USING THAT TO SAY, NO, IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THEM THAT THEY'RE FREE FROM LIABILITY; THAT IT IS NOT A FREE PASS TO KNOWINGLY ALLOW THEIR PRODUCTS TO LAND IN DANGEROUS HANDS.

THAT WAS CALIFORNIA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THIS PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT, HOW BIG OF A THREAT IS IT TO MEXICO'S CASE?

>> SO WHAT WE ARE ARGUING IN OUR LAWSUIT IS THAT THAT PARTICULAR LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO MEXICO BECAUSE THE EFFECTS OF THEIR ILLICIT AND NEGLIGENT COMMERCIAL PRACTICES ARE CAUSING DAMAGES IN MEXICO.

SO THAT LAW IS EXCLUSIVE FOR THE U.S. AND PROVIDES IN A WAY IMMUNITY FROM CLAIMS FOR THIRD PARTIES IN THE U.S.

SO WE ARE NOT CLAIMING THAT.

WE ACTUALLY RESPECT ALL LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN THE U.S., AND WE ARE USING ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT THE FLOW OF WEAPONS, ILLEGAL WEAPONS, TO MEXICO ARE CAUSING TROUBLES IN MEXICO AND THAT'S IN MEXICO.

>> AND THE STATES THAT WE MENTIONED THAT SIGNED ON, NEVADA WAS NOT PART OF THAT.

AND THE REASON WHY IS -- I'LL READ A QUOTE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT FIRST FROM CONNECTICUT'S ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID THAT THIS PARTICULAR ACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, QUOTE, DOES NOT SHIELD GUN MANUFACTURERS AND DEALERS FROM CONSUMER LAWS GOVERNING THE MARKETING AND SALE OF FIREARMS.

THAT IS THE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW THAT CONNECTICUT WAS ABLE TO USE IN THE SANDY HOOK CASE.

THAT LED TO REMINGTON HAVING TO SETTLE WITH OR CHOOSING TO SETTLE WITH THE SANDY HOOK VICTIM FAMILIES BECAUSE OF THAT CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW.

IN TERMS OF NEVADA, THIS IS WHAT NEVADA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID.

THE CONNECTICUT STATE LAWS AT ISSUE IN THE CASE ARE UNLIKE THOSE IN PLACE IN NEVADA.

HENCE, OUR DECISION TO NOT JOIN WITH THE GROUP.

HOWEVER, WE ARE MONITORING THE CASE AND WILL LOOK TO JOIN IN THE EVENT THAT CIRCUMSTANCES MAY GET APPROPRIATE.

ATTORNEY GENERAL FORD HAS LONG SUPPORTED COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS AND REFORM INCLUDING CLOSING GUN SHOW LOOP HOLES, BANNING GHOST GUNS, EXPANDING BACKGROUND CHECKS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO IN THE FUTURE.

IN ADDITION TO THAT $10 BILLION, MEXICO IS ALSO SEEKING THESE GUN COMPANIES TO CHANGE HOW THEY OPERATE.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT THEM TO DO?

>> WE WANT THEM TO FUND STUDIES, RESEARCH, BEST PRACTICES FOR EVERYONE IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE SENSIBLE REGULATIONS FOR THE SALES OF WEAPONS.

WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO BASICALLY STOP THEIR PRACTICES THAT ARE PRODUCING THESE MASSIVE AND ILLEGAL FLOW OF WEAPONS TO MEXICO.

WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO HAVE MORE CONTROLS IN THE ACTUAL WEAPON.

MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR A THIRD PARTY TO USE THE WEAPON THAT PERSON OR ORGANIZATION MAY PURCHASE LEGALLY IN THE U.S. >> CONSUL OF MEXICO IN LAS VEGAS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US FOR NEVADA WEEK.

FOR ANY OF THE RESOURCES DISCUSSED, GO TO OUR WEBSITE, VEGASPBS.org/NEVADAWEEK, FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER AT VEGAS PBS.

♪♪♪