The Bundy bought their land from someone and everyone that bought land after the treaty bought from people that were protected under the treaty.
Nevada administers and oversees the grazing rights. The BLM does not have a clear case here. My bet is the state could file for an injunction against BLM. Reports say the Nevada governor is angry with the feds. Congressional members from Nevada are also lining up against federal agencies.
Your argument is not solid, far from it.
Nobody said the Bundys don’t have rights to the land they purchased whether from an individual or from a state or federal entity.
That isn’t the issue. They are grazing their cattle on land that was purchased by the U.S. through treaty. Even Cliven Bundy acknowledges that. What he disputes is that the federal government owns all rights and title to the land on which he’s grazing his cattle.
No, Nevada does not oversee and administer the grazing rights. That would be the BLM, to whom Bundy paid grazing fees for years before he decided he wasn’t going to anymore.
If you want to assert that Nevada’s disclaim of the land in question was unconstitutional, you need to make the arguments outlined at the following link, which I support, BTW.
http://www.npri.org/publications/solution-of-the-week-liberate-nevada-from-its-federal-occupation