According to several usually reliable sources on the internet, President Barack Obama announced in January that he will take these actions by Executive Order:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background-check system.

4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to healthcare providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within Affordable Care Act exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

As of 3/20/2013 it does not appear that the president has actually taken any action to implement any of these measures.  The US Senate has been dealing with several of them in committee and it looks as though the only one that might be debated in full session is the one dealing magazine limit.  Apparently those highly educated legislators and the people who report what passes as news these days are confused about the terminology.  The latest buzz word is magazine clip.  Just for the record, they are in almost every case a magazine, not a clip and certainly not a magazine clip.

I have yet to find a source for the wording of the executive orders.  I did find this link to what appears to be a White House attempt to provide the reasoning behind some of these measures and sometimes a hint as to how implementation might work.

It is impossible for anyone to know how these executive orders will affect what has heretofore been legal but will, upon execution of the orders become illegal. 

It has been reported that he has already signed these documents so in theory; they have the effect of law.  Unless the EOs are made public we will not really understand the effect until it is implemented.  In short, we will have to wait and see what unfolds.  

As these executive orders are implemented by government agencies and we can see the impact how they will affect law abiding citizens traditional right to keep and bear arms I will add that information to the paragraphs that follow (in EO number order).  

We urge you to make your views known to the president and your U.S. senators and representatives about these executive orders and about any new gun control laws and for that matter about existing gun control laws which you feel are or would be unreasonable, counterproductive or unconstitutional and also for those which you feel are or would be reasonable, productive and constitutional.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.

I wonder who determines what relevant data is and what current laws might be violated in order to comply with this one.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.

Unnecessary barriers?  Who determines what those are?

What process is to be used to ensure that those whose information is to be passed around are afforded due process as required by the Constitution? 

If they are legal barriers then someone thought when they were established that it was important that such information not be shared like this.  Is the basis for those restrictions to be ignored now?

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background-check system.

This one should prove interesting.  There are positive incentives and there are negative incentives.  I wonder which ones will be employed.

Besides that we might ask, is the state required to provide information based on state law about people who, for whatever reason are not allowed to be in possession of  a firearm or based on federal criteria?

What happens to a record indicating that a person cannot have a gun in State A but has moved to State B where he is allowed to have a gun?  The feds have the record indicating he cannot.  How does that get corrected?

If the records or the information are medical in nature, what about the HIPAA law?

4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

I find this one fascinating.  Apparently the Attorney General who is on record as believing that we do not have a right to be armed at all is going to review categories of individuals who are prohibited from having firearms.  To what end?  Watch for the list to be expanded, possibly again by executive order and if it is we might ask the following questions.

Who decides which categories of people are dangerous and are to be added to the list? 

By what process will this happen? 

What ensures that our Fourth Amendment rights are respected?

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Is this not a state issue? 

What is presumed to be the basis for the seizure in the first place?

I don't see any red flags on this one but why do this at the federal level?

6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

Surely he is not serious with this one.

All a private seller has to do is take the purchaser to an FFL dealer, transfer the firearm to the FFL dealer so that it can be sold, have the purchaser fill out a BATFE Form 4473 and record the Georgia Weapons Carry License and Georgia Driver's License or call the NCIS backgrond check number and run the Brady check.  If it comes back, proceed complete the sale.  If it does not come back proceed the purchaser could have a problem.  That is the way I sell to a private party and that is what we suggest in the Firearms and the Law class as a mechanism to protect yourself from being accused of selling a firearm to someone who cannot legally possess one.

Has anyone seen the user manual for how BATFE forms 4473 are to be filled out and processed and the FFL log maintained?  Why would any additional guidance be needed.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

Seems benign enough until we see what it actually does.

Besides that, the NRA actually does a pretty good job of this one for anybody who chooses to take any of their shooting courses.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Watch this one.  Safe gun storage is handled at the state level now.  Why would the federal government have a dog in this fight?

Looks like the Consumer Product  Safety  Commission (CPSC) will call the shots on this one.  Gotta' wonder how much importance they will place on quick and reliable access to defensive firearms when seconds count.

Expect this one to drive up the cost of security devices and containers, make them difficult or impractical to use and that it be required that they be used by any and all gun owners.

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Seems reasonable enough but I gotta wonder, to what end? 

If it is to find instances of illegal transfers of firearms to persons known to the seller to be disallowed possession of a firearm then it makes sense.  That is already a violation of federal law and carries a penalty of up to $10,000 and/or up to 10 years in prison.

If it is to be used to prosecute or persecute people whose firearms have been stolen and then used in a crime or if they were sold or transferred legally to someone not known to be disallowed possession of a firearm then I have a really big problem with it.

10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Again, I gotta' ask, to what end?

If someone lost a gun there might be a case to be made about reckless or irresponsible behavior, but stolen guns?

Would the objective be to study how they are stolen in order to somehow make them more difficult to steal or might it be to sanction the victim of the theft?  Just asking.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

This requires an executive order?

Apparently there has been no such director in that office for six years.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

The federal government is responsible for this?  I thought issues of this nature were to be addressed at the state level.  Is it the case that the targets of this proper training are deemed not to be properly trained now?

Besides that, the problem is not so much a lack of training.  It is more a lack of first responders who can actually respond in time to make a difference.  The only ones in a position to do that are school staff and unless they are armed and adequately trained they will not make much of a difference either.

If the federal government would completely eliminate the notion of gun free zones with respect to schools at least when it comes to screened and trained armed school staff it would be a step in the right direction.  Left to the states, some of them would do just that.  In fact some already have and others are discussing it.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

And that is not being done now?

Prevent gun violence by whom against whom? 

Preventing violence by thugs against innocent people does not seem to be working all that well where people are not allowed to be armed so as to be their own first responder.  Check the stats in Chicago.

Surely he is not suggesting that measures be taken against those of us who would use force, including deadly force to defend ourselves and our families and if we elect to do so when it is justified, to defend innocent third parties if we are willing to assume the risk for doing so? 

Not all gun violence is a bad thing.  It is a bad thing that gun violence or the threat of it are required to settle situations that put our life at risk but no law is going to prevent those situations from happening.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This requires an executive order?

This one is interesting.  The CDC has been against the Second Amendment for decades.  Let me ask you this.  What does the CDC know about guns or violence?  Now if we were talking about intentional passing of venereal disease to an unsuspecting person then the CDC might have something relevant to say.

If you want to get a report that indicates that all gun ownership by private citizens is bad then the CDC is a great organization to go to in order to get that result.

15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

This requires an executive order?

Seems benign enough but watch this one.  If it is just a study it is probably not much of a problem.  If it morphs into any kind of mandated requirement that these devices be applied to newly manufactured firearms or worse yet, that firearms already in the public domain be retrofitted it would be a huge problem for all of us.

If such devices can be developed which are practical and are 100% reliable then they should sell on the open market without government involvement or what is more likely to evolve, a government mandate both on new firearms and for those already legally owned but which do not have such technology retrofitted.  They should do that on the merit of the product.

Let's assume that one of these technologies allows a firearm to be shot only when in the hands of someone for whom it has been programmed to recognize.  I would ask the president and anyone who is protected by the secret service, capitol police or any other law enforcement agency this question.  Are all firearms (I mean every firearm in use) used by those agencies fitted with that technology and used in an identical manner required of civilians?  The answer would be, "NOPE"  It will never happen.  Then why should Six-pack Joe be required to use this new technology when it is not good enough for those who protect the elites?

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Watch out for this one.  Sounds benign enough but ask yourself this question. 

If my doctor asks me about guns in my home and I refuse to answer on the grounds that it is none of his or anyone else's business, what sanctions will be employed against me?

If you think that is a bit paranoid check out executive order 21 and whatever comes out of number 14.

17. Release a letter to healthcare providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

This one, I have no problem with but I would be surprised it it needs clarification.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Why would this be a federal responsibility?  How successful has federal intervention in K through 12 education been in improving education?

One would assume that he means providing funds.  Funds from where?  How much longer could you keep going if you were in debt to the extent that you can barely service the interest on that debt and you spend forty percent more than you earn, and are therefore not only not reducing your debt but are adding to it?

Of course we as individuals cannot just print money.  For us they call that counterfeiting and it is a federal crime enforced by who else but the Treasury Department.  Ironically that is exactly who prints money for which no goods or services exist to justify any such thing.  That, to me sounds a bit like counterfeiting.  I wonder who enforces that law against the agency who is supposed to investigate it and prosecute law breakers.

19. Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

The first step would be to ensure that on private property (schools and institutions of higher learning) that no "gun safe zones" are established by any government.  Seems to me that it is a violation of the Constitution to do so.  Apparently not everybody sees it that way.  In any event, do not look for anything like that to be the result of the EO.

Emergency response plans are not going to do anything to prevent or limit the damage that a violent nut case can do if he decides to attack a soft target like this unless they include an armed presence on site at the time an event occurs.  Look at which venues they routinely attack.  It is almost always these gun free zones.

Most of Chicago is a "gun free zone".  Not.  There is no such thing.  What does result from these idiotic laws are target rich environments and that is where these fruitloops go to wreak their havoc.

Armed and trained individuals, both LEO and civilians need to be part of the solution to reduce the frequency of these incidents and to limit the damage that is done when they do happen.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Might make sense if the perpetrators of these mass shootings are on or are eligible for medicare.  I am not aware that that is the case.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within Affordable Care Act exchanges.

This is the one I referenced in the comments that appear below EO 16.  Watch these two and evaluate the implementation of the two of them together.

Why would this come up on a list of gun control measures?

What we need to watch for here is the use of the Affordable Care Act to sanction those who refuse to reveal whether or not they have firearms in their home.

If you understand the risk of this happening then you understand why I, for one did not want to federal government involved in health care.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.

This one sounds benign enough.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Except for the fact that in my view Secretary Sebelius should probably have no seat at the table if anything of importance is being discussed I don't have a problem with this one.

I think it might bear watching to see what kind of conclusions they draw and what sort of recommendations them may make which may be the focus of even more executive orders.