The article states the President's EA is not an effort to deprive people of their rights but your avatar and posting history clearly show you being against gun ownership rights. According to the article that would seem to put you at odds with the President.

It was passed by both houses and signed into law by George W. Bush. Only $200 million has been allocated by the House Budget Committee.

It's a notorious method of NRA obstruction, simply buy off a couple of crucial Republicans and effectively de-fund any attempt at regulation.

Most agencies budgets have increased by 40% over the last 20 years but the BATF&E's has increased only 4% effectively reducing actual spending on enforcement. ATF has fewer agents now than it did in 2006. The agency went without a director from 2006 to 2013 because the Senate would not confirm one. The current director, Bryan Jones, will retire this month. What are the chances that the Senate will confirm a new director? Yet the pro gun side insists that "all we have to do is enforce the laws we have."

are sold to or attempted to be sold to ineligible persons?

Honest question.

That seems to be normal from them

Not exactly something that oozes credibility.

Funny, that the same newspaper that mounted Gatling guns on their building to keep draft protesters away during the Civil War and at other times has hired armed thugs to "protect" their distribution trucks, now can't find enough anti-gun "news" articles and Op Eds to fill their dwindling page count.

since this same newpaper just last month called for the forced confiscation of the most popular rifles in U.S. homes, even though rifles kill fewer people than bicycles do.

I commend the President for not going down that road; I was relieved to see absolutely none of that in the executive actions announced this week. It's certainly not for lack of lobbying by the NYT, other large media corporations, Wall Street tycoons, and Third Way groups.

From just this past month:

New Republic:

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

"Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html

"It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles (sic) used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."