Nashua police say man made gun with 3-D printed parts

MaverickNH

NES Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
8,394
Likes
8,025
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 8 / 0 / 0

The crimes in bold.

"A man from Nashua is under arrest after investigators said they found a gun with 3-D printed parts in his apartment. Investigators said they searched his apartment after he shot a projectile from a different type of weapon into someone's apartment in the city.

Police said this was the first time they had ever seen a gun with 3-D printed parts in Nashua. Alan Grogg, 34, is accused of shooting a projectile from his backyard on Lake Street into an apartment on Brook Street. A resident found that it had gone through their window and into their bedroom. Grogg told police he was doing target practice in his backyard with an air rifle, and the shot ricocheted.

When Grogg spoke to investigators, he admitted to having shot the air rifle but also to owning an AR-15-style rifle with parts that he had made himself with a 3-D printer, police said.
When investigators searched his home, they found that gun, police said.

Grogg is facing several charges, including reckless conduct with a deadly weapon and being a felon in possession with a deadly weapon.

"It's very concerning for us, because 3-D printers are very accessible," said Nashua Sgt. John Cinelli. "You can buy them at your local Staples, and then somebody can take them home, and if they're savvy enough, they can make their own guns for them."

Police said they don't believe anyone was targeted, and there's no threat to the public.
 

The crimes in bold.

"A man from Nashua is under arrest after investigators said they found a gun with 3-D printed parts in his apartment. Investigators said they searched his apartment after he shot a projectile from a different type of weapon into someone's apartment in the city.

Police said this was the first time they had ever seen a gun with 3-D printed parts in Nashua. Alan Grogg, 34, is accused of shooting a projectile from his backyard on Lake Street into an apartment on Brook Street. A resident found that it had gone through their window and into their bedroom. Grogg told police he was doing target practice in his backyard with an air rifle, and the shot ricocheted.

When Grogg spoke to investigators, he admitted to having shot the air rifle but also to owning an AR-15-style rifle with parts that he had made himself with a 3-D printer, police said.
When investigators searched his home, they found that gun, police said.

Grogg is facing several charges, including reckless conduct with a deadly weapon and being a felon in possession with a deadly weapon.

"It's very concerning for us, because 3-D printers are very accessible," said Nashua Sgt. John Cinelli. "You can buy them at your local Staples, and then somebody can take them home, and if they're savvy enough, they can make their own guns for them."

Police said they don't believe anyone was targeted, and there's no threat to the public.
I have not been keeping up with NH laws, but I believe this stems from the federal push to ban personally manufactured firearms.

Summary of Final Rule 2021R-05F | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Federal Register :: Request Access

Justice Department Announces New Rule to Modernize Firearm Definitions
 
Holy shnickt at the pearl clutching cops in that article. Oh the humanity that someone is making a gun in the peace and quiet of their own homes.
This is just a change in the definition of frame/receiver. Sounds like the guy was a prohibited person. Before the rule change an 80% lower or an unserialized 3D print wouldn't have merited action, I don't think. Now, it's possession of a firearm.
 
This is just a change in the definition of frame/receiver. Sounds like the guy was a prohibited person. Before the rule change an 80% lower or an unserialized 3D print wouldn't have merited action, I don't think. Now, it's possession of a firearm.
80% without any further work is a paperweight so not an issue for a felon to possess - looks bad but not illegal.

A 3d printed lower IS a firearm per federal regulation therefore illegal to possess as a felon.

Guy has a room temp IQ for screwing around with a pellet rifle as a felon when he knew he had an AR that could put him in prison.
Dumber than dog shit for talking to the cops
 
80% without any further work is a paperweight so not an issue for a felon to possess - looks bad but not illegal.

A 3d printed lower IS a firearm per federal regulation therefore illegal to possess as a felon.

Guy has a room temp IQ for screwing around with a pellet rifle as a felon when he knew he had an AR that could put him in prison.
Dumber than dog shit for talking to the cops
As I read it, 80% is now defined as a frame.

This is from the Federal Register:

"The NPRM explained that this supplemental definition aimed to address when an object becomes a frame or receiver such that it is a regulated article. The NPRM stated that partially complete or unassembled frames or receivers, commonly called “80% receivers,” [47] are often sold in kits where the frame or receiver can readily be completed or assembled to a functional state. See id. at 27729 n.54. The Department stated that the supplemental definition is necessary for clarity because companies are not running background checks or maintaining transaction records when they manufacture and sell these kits. Accordingly, prohibited persons have easily obtained them [48] and, when recovered, they are nearly impossible to trace. The proposed definition also sought to make clear that unformed blocks of metal, and other similar articles only in a primordial state [49] would not—without more processing—be considered a “partially complete” frame or receiver that is captured under the definition of “frame or receiver.”"
 

The crimes in bold.

"A man from Nashua is under arrest after investigators said they found a gun with 3-D printed parts in his apartment. Investigators said they searched his apartment after he shot a projectile from a different type of weapon into someone's apartment in the city.

Police said this was the first time they had ever seen a gun with 3-D printed parts in Nashua. Alan Grogg, 34, is accused of shooting a projectile from his backyard on Lake Street into an apartment on Brook Street. A resident found that it had gone through their window and into their bedroom. Grogg told police he was doing target practice in his backyard with an air rifle, and the shot ricocheted.

When Grogg spoke to investigators, he admitted to having shot the air rifle but also to owning an AR-15-style rifle with parts that he had made himself with a 3-D printer, police said.
When investigators searched his home, they found that gun, police said.

Grogg is facing several charges, including reckless conduct with a deadly weapon and being a felon in possession with a deadly weapon.

"It's very concerning for us, because 3-D printers are very accessible," said Nashua Sgt. John Cinelli. "You can buy them at your local Staples, and then somebody can take them home, and if they're savvy enough, they can make their own guns for them."

Police said they don't believe anyone was targeted, and there's no threat to the public.
So the takeaway is the media needs the arrest to be about possessing 3D-printed firearm parts specifically, but instead it was for reckless conduct with a deadly weapon and felon in possession, resulting from firing an air rifle.

Thus the narrative being pushed is 3D-printed firearms should be feared by the public, probably to drive some legislation against the building of firearms by individuals.
 
The arrestee is a frequent flier - this from 2021:

”Alan C. Grogg, 41, of Lake Street in Nashua on felon in possession of a deadly weapon and controlled drug act; acts prohibited-morphine charges, both felonies. He was accused of possessing the drug and a Beretta pistol in Nashua on Aug. 18. Previously, according to the indictment, he was convicted on a drug possession charge.”

And a really bad shot, unless he shot through his target without a backstop - then just stupid. There is indeed reason to question his competence…

IMG_2767.jpeg
 
I worked many years in nashua. Was at a place that we collected consumer address. That tree street areas were always trouble.

No pictures of this “3D printed” AR?
 
So the takeaway is the media needs the arrest to be about possessing 3D-printed firearm parts specifically, but instead it was for reckless conduct with a deadly weapon and felon in possession, resulting from firing an air rifle.

Thus the narrative being pushed is 3D-printed firearms should be feared by the public, probably to drive some legislation against the building of firearms by individuals.
Just for some perspective, in some parts of the country, kids with no criminal histories using air rifles / pellet guns for target practice on public lands are contacted by LE and various degrees of enforcement actions are taken depending on where it happens. They literally can't go into the woods and shoot targets with pellet guns.

Also, LE agencies will post on their social media accounts when unserialized firearms are taken into custody. Often in these instances, it is in fact a prohibited person who was doing something non firearm related that attracted attention.

I've seen items ranging from run of the mill polymer 80 handguns to pretty trick looking short barreled rifles with red dots and a stack of 30 round mags in a 10 round state. These are actual bad guys, not just shooting sports enthusiasts.
 
Last edited:
As I read it, 80% is now defined as a frame.

This is from the Federal Register:

"The NPRM explained that this supplemental definition aimed to address when an object becomes a frame or receiver such that it is a regulated article. The NPRM stated that partially complete or unassembled frames or receivers, commonly called “80% receivers,” [47] are often sold in kits where the frame or receiver can readily be completed or assembled to a functional state. See id. at 27729 n.54. The Department stated that the supplemental definition is necessary for clarity because companies are not running background checks or maintaining transaction records when they manufacture and sell these kits. Accordingly, prohibited persons have easily obtained them [48] and, when recovered, they are nearly impossible to trace. The proposed definition also sought to make clear that unformed blocks of metal, and other similar articles only in a primordial state [49] would not—without more processing—be considered a “partially complete” frame or receiver that is captured under the definition of “frame or receiver.”"
You seem to have missed the word "proposed" in your quote.

Unfinished received are not yet firearms at the federal level. The ATF proposed to claim that they could be if, for example, they were sold in a build kit. This is not currently the law.
 
You seem to have missed the word "proposed" in your quote.

Unfinished received are not yet firearms at the federal level. The ATF proposed to claim that they could be if, for example, they were sold in a build kit. This is not currently the law.
I could certainly be incorrect on its current status.

I may have also confused it with the CA law:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/consumer-alert.pdf

The goalposts are moving so quickly it's hard to stay on top of everything.
 
I could certainly be incorrect on its current status.

I may have also confused it with the CA law:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/consumer-alert.pdf

The goalposts are moving so quickly it's hard to stay on top of everything.
Sure, several states have changed their definitions or are trying to do so.

From your own quote:
  • [...]this supplemental definition aimed to address[...]
  • The proposed definition also sought to make clear[...]
In other words, they tried to do a thing and didn't get it.
 
80% without any further work is a paperweight so not an issue for a felon to possess - looks bad but not illegal.

A 3d printed lower IS a firearm per federal regulation therefore illegal to possess as a felon.

Guy has a room temp IQ for screwing around with a pellet rifle as a felon when he knew he had an AR that could put him in prison.
Dumber than dog shit for talking to the cops
This is beautiful [rofl]
 
As I read it, 80% is now defined as a frame.

This is from the Federal Register:

"The NPRM explained that this supplemental definition aimed to address when an object becomes a frame or receiver such that it is a regulated article. The NPRM stated that partially complete or unassembled frames or receivers, commonly called “80% receivers,” [47] are often sold in kits where the frame or receiver can readily be completed or assembled to a functional state. See id. at 27729 n.54. The Department stated that the supplemental definition is necessary for clarity because companies are not running background checks or maintaining transaction records when they manufacture and sell these kits. Accordingly, prohibited persons have easily obtained them [48] and, when recovered, they are nearly impossible to trace. The proposed definition also sought to make clear that unformed blocks of metal, and other similar articles only in a primordial state [49] would not—without more processing—be considered a “partially complete” frame or receiver that is captured under the definition of “frame or receiver.”"
That's only if the 80% is sold with a completion kit.
If the 80% is sold separately then zero issues
And the rule is under review in the courts so eventually kits won't be considered firearms
 
As I read it, 80% is now defined as a frame.

This is from the Federal Register:

"The NPRM explained that this supplemental definition aimed to address when an object becomes a frame or receiver such that it is a regulated article. The NPRM stated that partially complete or unassembled frames or receivers, commonly called “80% receivers,” [47] are often sold in kits where the frame or receiver can readily be completed or assembled to a functional state. See id. at 27729 n.54. The Department stated that the supplemental definition is necessary for clarity because companies are not running background checks or maintaining transaction records when they manufacture and sell these kits. Accordingly, prohibited persons have easily obtained them [48] and, when recovered, they are nearly impossible to trace. The proposed definition also sought to make clear that unformed blocks of metal, and other similar articles only in a primordial state [49] would not—without more processing—be considered a “partially complete” frame or receiver that is captured under the definition of “frame or receiver.”"

It’s complicated. There were a few injunctions. Then the SCOTUS put a stay on all injunctions, except for P80’s.

But then the 5th circuit court ruled most of the frame/receiver rule was illegal. I’m not sure where it stands in other circuits though.

You seem to have missed the word "proposed" in your quote.

Unfinished received are not yet firearms at the federal level. The ATF proposed to claim that they could be if, for example, they were sold in a build kit. This is not currently the law.

The ATF definitely instituted the proposed frame/receiver rule. Current status is above.
 
Last edited:
Holy shnickt at the pearl clutching cops in that article. Oh the humanity that someone is making a gun in the peace and quiet of their own homes.
I mean, he did ND into someone else's apartment...

Folks, I'm all for people making whatever guns they want. But this dude's a PP and grossly unsafe with his guns. Why are we defending him?
 
I mean, he did ND into someone else's apartment...
Folks, I'm all for people making whatever guns they want. But this dude's a PP and grossly unsafe with his guns. Why are we defending him?
Are we defending Alan "Felon" Grogg, or are we excoriating WMUR for their pearl-wringing?

Union-Leader has a better headline (link goes to archive mirror).
 
Last edited:
I mean, he did ND into someone else's apartment...

Folks, I'm all for people making whatever guns they want. But this dude's a PP and grossly unsafe with his guns. Why are we defending him?
Are we defending him, or the principle that free men should not be blocked from their rightful access to arms? This reminds me of the ACLU in Skokie...
 
I mean, he did ND into someone else's apartment...

Folks, I'm all for people making whatever guns they want. But this dude's a PP and grossly unsafe with his guns. Why are we defending him?

It was a ricochet from a pellet gun. Not a ND with an actual firearm. Yes, he should have been more responsible and made sure his target/backstop couldn’t ricochet anywhere. But let’s be real, there was extremely little risk of injuring someone. Not much different in risk than a boy accidentally breaking a neighbor’s window with a rock.

The guy is definitely room temp IQ like someone else said though.
 
Are we defending him, or the principle that free men should not be blocked from their rightful access to arms? This reminds me of the ACLU in Skokie...
This
If you are too dangerous to enjoy your inherent right to self defense then you are too dangerous to be allowed to roam free in society.

The only grey area is those with cognitive issues who are not violent but don't have the ability to deal with the responsibilities coincident with the enjoyment of rights.
 
This is just a change in the definition of frame/receiver. Sounds like the guy was a prohibited person. Before the rule change an 80% lower or an unserialized 3D print wouldn't have merited action, I don't think. Now, it's possession of a firearm.

Which gets to "why is he prohibited?" And "Does he have the right to vote? Walk fleely in public? Be free of search and seizure?" All great questions. Like having a law that says he can't have a gun. . . . stopped him from having a gun in the first place.
 
From the article; "also to owning an AR-15-style rifle with parts that he had made himself with a 3-D printer, police said"

I highly doubt that the receiver was printed, probably just stuff like hand-guards.
 
From the article; "also to owning an AR-15-style rifle with parts that he had made himself with a 3-D printer, police said"
I highly doubt that the receiver was printed, probably just stuff like hand-guards.
The AR-15 is one of the few designs where printing the (lower) receiver with consumer-grade 3d printers is almost trivial. So easy that the makerspace by him went out of their way to preemptively forbid it. No, the cheapest one at Microcenter won't do it, gotta spend +$400 for something that won't totally suck.

OTOH, can buy quite a few 80% (or for a non-felon, stripped serialized) lowers with that same $400...
 
The only grey area is those with cognitive issues who are not violent but don't have the ability to deal with the responsibilities coincident with the enjoyment of rights.
At which point, we have a process that places such individual under guardianship of some sort. It's almost as imperfect as the rest of our legal system, but at least it recognizes their humanity and attendant rights.

From the article; "also to owning an AR-15-style rifle with parts that he had made himself with a 3-D printer, police said"

I highly doubt that the receiver was printed, probably just stuff like hand-guards.
Could go either way. Increasingly, folks are printing lowers that achieve acceptable reliability within the expected capacity of the process. It could also be that he bought a commercial 80% lower and finished it by whatever method.
 
Back
Top Bottom