SAN DIEGO — The San Diego City Attorney’s office has reached a staggering 1,000 gun violence restraining orders dating from 2018 to October of this year. As of October, around 85 cases were pending permanent hearings.

According to the City Attorney’s office, while working with the San Diego Police Department, they’ve reached a total of 1,011 gun violence restraining orders, 437 of those orders have become permanent, meaning someone is either a threat to themselves or others and could be issued a suspension from gun access ranging from one to five years. This is analyzed based on the severity of the threat — 50 of these cases threatened violence meeting the standard of what could be labeled as a mass casualty at either a school, workplace or public area.

“We are absolutely against anyone abusing the use of a firearm, but what’s happening here is you’re giving someone the ability to take firearms away from somebody who is doing almost nothing.” said Michael Schwartz with the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC.

Schwartz argues the recent trend, instilled by red flag laws, is a product of what he is calling mere accusations against law abiding gun holders.

“They’re using these laws vindictively rather than preventatively,” Schwartz went on to say.

FOX 5 Legal Expert Wendy Patrick weighed in on the broader implications of red flag laws through a general statewide approach as a series of gun-related hearings are underway this week in San Diego Federal Court followed by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which sets a new standard for judges, one pointing back to the Second Amendment.

“Many states have what we have called red flag laws, and gun violence restraining orders. but remember those may have enhanced significance when you factor in the reality that courts are now reinterpreting existing gun law regulations,” Patrick said. There’s going to be a lot of new court cases that are going to seek to test a lot of new court cases that are going to test existing laws to see if they are now in accord with the new U.S. Supreme Court’s law of the land.”