If you ask the average American about the political leaning of cable news, they’d tell you that Fox News is conservative, MSNBC is liberal, and CNN is in the middle. Of course, that’s assuming they don’t actually watch one particular network.

After all, the oldest cable news network may have started off as unbiased, the truth of the matter is that it’s not anymore. The jihad they launched against President Trump should have been enough to make their biases clear.

If not, then maybe their reaction to San Jose’s new gun laws will.

Two CNN hosts eagerly touted San Jose’s new proposed gun laws that would put a tax on all legal gun owners.

On Monday, CNN hosts John Avlon and Laura Jarrett discussed the San Jose’s city council’s decision to impose a new yearly tax on gun owners.

This proposition, which was voted on unanimously, will require gun owners in San Jose to take out liability insurance on their firearms and pay an annual tax fee to fund emergency response teams. The measure was also supported by Democrat Mayor Sam Liccardo.

Avlon described the policy proposal as the “first of its kind in the nation” as well as “a really interesting, innovative policy.”

“So super interesting. Novel, first of its kind as you said,” Jarrett, who is the daughter of long-time Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, said. She went on to compare the proposed tax fee to car insurance, presuming that financially penalizing gun owners could, in fact, offset the costs of gun violence.

“This would be a huge savings if it goes through,” said Jarrett.

Except, there was little discussion about the real problems with this bill. Sure, they touched on critics calling it unconstitutional (which it is) and that criminals won’t comply, but there are more issues beyond just those.

First, what about the fact that this insurance won’t actually do anything about crime.

There’s no insurance on the planet that will pay out on an intentional criminal activity. At most, liability insurance would only cover accidental shootings, which represent a tiny fraction of the total number of shootings each year.

Second, who offers such insurance? I haven’t been able to find a single company that offers liability insurance to individual gun owners. I can find it for gun stores, but not for ordinary citizens. Yet people are going to be required to buy an insurance policy that doesn’t exist? Where was that in CNN’s learned discussion of the law?

Oh, that doesn’t matter. Not to them.

No, all that matters is that the law sticks it to law-abiding gun owners who are being held responsible for the actions of criminals. They wouldn’t think to look at this critically. They wouldn’t imagine asking questions about the viability of this measure or even whether this type of insurance even exists.

Why would they? They’re just journalists, right? I guess it’s not like asking questions of those in power is part of their job descriptions or anything.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is CNN.