As a lawyer, then you understand that the fed. gov’t is not bound to recognize any state law contrary to federal law. Further, US v. Gardner knocks down Bundy’s other arguments. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061959.html
you are a marxist . where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government can own most of the land in Nevada or that unelected government agencies can have armies and use them against citizens? prove all of these. you trust government don’t you socialist/democrat.
It is certainly true that the Supremacy Clause gives the federal courts a rationale to allow federal law to displace state law. But it is a doctrine that is selectively invoked and interpreted. As for Gardner, the case turns on one’s political perception of the United States. The original conception was not full sovereignty, but an agent of the states with limited and enumerated powers. Under this conception, one might easily hold that the United States, when it comes into possession of property other than by purchase from a state with some sort of state relinquishment of state sovereignty, holds the land as agent for the states, or in trust for them, to be gotten rid of in a reasonably expeditious manner. Once one conceives of the United States as a full sovereign, with numerous powers inherent to sovereignty (how we wound up with printing press money, by they way), then one takes a different view.