On Monday, the Denver City Council passed an ordinance that would make it illegal to sell, carry, store or possess bump stocks, the Denver Post reported. The vote passed 11-1, making Denver the second city in the nation to ban bump stocks. Columbia, South Carolina was the first.

Councilman Kevin Flynn, the only no vote, was conflicted by one of the amendments in the ordinance which would drop the city's magazine limit from 21 rounds to 15. The number was decreased by the Colorado State Legislature back in 2013.

According to Flynn, having no grandfathered in clause hurts law-abiding gun owners.

“We’re putting law-abiding, decent gun owners in Denver in a dilemma,” Flynn said.

In an attempt to sway his colleagues, Flynn added an amendment that would allow gun owners to keep these higher-capacity magazines in their home. But the other council members didn't feel the same way.

Councilwoman Robin Kniech cited gun violence as the reason she is against large capacity magazines.

“Gun violence is often coming from a home base,” Kniech told the Post.

Although Flynn is opposed to bump stocks, he says he couldn't vote for the measure without grandfathering in the magazines.

The decision comes after a gunman killed 53 people in Las Vegas back in October utilizing a bump stock.

Let the Banning Begin

Denver isn't the only one considering a bump stock ban. The Colorado State Legislature is looking at banning the accessories on a statewide level.

“Why would you need a bump stock unless you intended to kill as many people as fast as you could?” State Sen. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, told the Denver Post when he introduced his bump stock ban legislation. “That should not be a partisan issue. Protecting the lives of Colorado citizens from insane mass killers should be something we should all be happy to join in.”

One of the biggest opponents is Colorado Senate President Kevin Grantham, who also had a family member in Las Vegas during the shooting.

“This won’t save a single soul,” Grantham said of the legislation. “This won’t help the problem that they perceive. I think all it does is infringe on somebody’s ability to operate within their Second Amendment rights.”

It is “irrelevant whether I had someone there or I didn’t have someone (at the concert) — the principle is the same," Gratham reiterated. “It’s a piece of equipment on a piece of equipment that the other side hates. And if you start banning such things and start regulating such things and you start infringing on people’s rights to have pieces of equipment that go on an implement.”