Can the President agree to NATO gun control regulations with Executive Order by passing Congress? What recourse would U.S. citizens have if this happens?

I think it is time we left NATO regardless.

Nope.

That requires an act of congress.

The UN Light Weapons Treaty (or whatever the hell its called) is up for discussion in March I believe.  Would require 2/3 majority vote to ratify even if the UN can agree on terms, which I don't think would be possible.  But you never know with our legislators these days.

He can direct his agencies and advisors to make every effort to comply with any proposed plan before it is even ratified.  He has already done this with the Sea Treaty probably at a cost of millions to the US Economy by now.

NATO does not have gun control regulations.  An executive order can only exercise constitutional powers granted the President by the Constitution, or legislative powers that Congress has conferred upon the President by passing legislation.

I wouldn't trust them not to do this if they see it as a way to take the argument out of congress.

Do you even have any clue what is in UNCLOS?

I didn’t have a clue since you didn’t short title what you were talking about.  
A quick check revealed possibly you were referring to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS.)  
What is "in UNCLOS?"  I would hazard a bunch of representatives of different members of the UN talking about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) but perhaps that is a wildly incorrect guess on my part.

I have never taken the time to look up the details of who attended UNCLOS nor the final draft of LOST in its entirety.   My connection for the Internet is not exactly fast.  From what little I read some time ago it seemed to involve cessation of part of our sovereignty.

My statement earlier was meant to reflect on when Obama Imposed LOST on US by Executive Fiat/Executive order.
I saw that as a bad thing.  IIRC the little I read on it said it would cost us a significant amount of money.  Again forgive me, it was some months ago I read about it.

Given my view of it as bad, the tone of your reply leads me to believe you consider LOST a good thing.  I try to be open minded.

(EDIT:  Thinking about it, and noting your location says FL, perhaps your comment could be meant to reflect how monumentally bad it really is.  I'm a little closer to land-locked here in the Peoples Republic of MN.)

If you would write a three page overview outlining the purpose of the treaty and how it is good vs. bad for the US I would be more than willing to read it.  

I just love how helpful and informative these conversations can be.

Sincerely
Casper507  

  I disagree with you. I think you're thinking of a treaty. A treaty would have to be approved by the Senate (and not the full Congress).  I also think you're thinking of the proposed UN gun control regulations. AFIK NATO doesn't have any. BUT back to the OP's question;  I think Obama could use EO to force the US to comply with the same regulations that NATO/UN uses.  Even though we wouldn't necessarily be a party or a signature to that agreement. We'd simply adopt the same laws.   I'm not sure what limitations there are on EOs but I don't think it would matter. I think Obama would just do it and wait for the gun owners to challange it. But that would take years if not decades to be ajudicated, and by that time I'm sure our guns would have been collected and ground to scrap and sold to China!

  Frankly a scenario like this is exactly what I'm expecting, and fear, from BHO!

   FWIW once they start using executive orders to get what they want our democracy is gone!  At that point it will simply be a dictatorship with the dictator elected every four years!  

    Don't forget, Hitler and Musselini were both first elected to office and then made themselves dictator for life. and we know what happened to folks that disagreed with them! All 6 million of them!

Here's an article by Dick Morris

http://www.dickmorris.com/administration-moves-forward-on-gun-control/

Treaties have to be ratified by Congress and any treaty that violates the US Constitution is automatically null and void.

I would say the treaty is symbolic at best. When it comes to the citizens of the united states you would think the constitution would stand.