The practice of the law—or malpractice—is as you describe. That's my point, and that of Bundy and his friends. The real law is the Constitution. Those going along with ignoring the Constitution have it wrong. They have folded their intellectual and legal cards for fear of disobeying the herd of self-interested Federal functionaries who believe that the bureaucracy should own everything.
What "is" is subject to change. It was fear, rather than law, that allowed the Feds to steal from the states and the people, and made their theft "what the law currently is." It is a counterposing worse fear, persistently applied, that will reimpose the rule of law and redeem our liberty. An unjust (and incoherent) law—including grazing taxes on land not within the boundaries of Washington, D.C., or a Federal military base—is no law at all.
You may have missed several posts in which I said the Constitution is the Law of the Land, but thanks to Marbury v. Madison and over-reaching congressmen and federal regulators, we now have the law of the land.
I've described some cases as federal judges making decisions on federal issues involving federal policy being argued by federal attorneys representing federal agencies.
When somebody posts that Nevada is an open-range state, I think it's helpful that they know federal courts have ruled that the Supremacy Clause makes Nevada law inapplicable to claimed federal land in Nevada. If we're going to discuss Bundy with liberals and those unfamiliar with the details, IMHO it's helpful to know what is the law of the land as well as what is the Law of the Land. Facts always defeat liberalism.