[caligatrux]

Bundy might have a point, assuming he wasn't negligent:

NRS 568.355  “Open range” defined.  As used in NRS 568.360 and 568.370, unless the context otherwise requires, “open range” means all unenclosed land outside of cities and towns upon which cattle, sheep or other domestic animals by custom, license, lease or permit are grazed or permitted to roam. (Added to NRS by 1983, 235)

NRS 568.360  Duties of owners of domestic animals with respect to domestic animals upon highway.
1.  No person, firm or corporation owning, controlling or in possession of any domestic animal running on open range has the duty to keep the animal off any highway traversing or located on the open range, and no such person, firm or corporation is liable for damages to any property or for injury to any person caused by any collision between a motor vehicle and the animal occurring on such a highway.
2.  Any person, firm or corporation negligently allowing a domestic animal to enter within a fenced right-of-way of a highway is liable for damages caused by a collision between a motor vehicle and the animal occurring on the highway.(Added to NRS by 1965, 644; A 1983, 235)

[Scoutmaster]

Those are state laws. As a general rule, federal law trumps state law, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't want to open up arguments about what land the U.S. can own under the Constitution, or whether land is held in trust for the people of the U.S. or Nevada.

At this point, the 'law' is what federal courts have ruled, which is the land belongs to the feds and federal law controls that land.

Whether or not the feds can enforce its laws and claims is another matter. We saw that with the first Bundy conflict.