[quote=Bugout4x4]"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."
"The ebb and flow of Tenth Amendment Jurisprudence reflects the delicate constitutional balance created by the Founding Fathers. The states ratified the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation created a national government that was too weak to defend itself and could not raise or collect revenue. Although the federal Constitution created a much stronger centralized government, the Founders did not want the states to lose all of their power to the federal government, as the colonies had lost their powers to Parliament. The Tenth Amendment continues to be defined as courts and legislatures address the balance of federal and state power."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment Great; you can Google. That's a start. It still has NOTHING to do with the 10th conveying any "rights" to a renter/leaser. You've thus far gotten Constitutionally enumerated and guaranteed rights mixed up with contractual obligations, and conflated 10th Amendment restrictions on the government with restrictions/obligations on contractual parties.
Contract agreements supersede all other rights under UCC and Maritime Law. Like I said...if you sign to give up your First Born just try to keep a Judge from making you uphold this Contract you signed. Not going to happen, even if you are the Mother of that Child...Seriously...I have actually been on the other side of this exact type of Contract with a Child we adopted. There wasn't even an exchange of argument. "Did you sign this?"..."Yes"..."Then we are done here...the Child goes with who you gave it too."
The point? Don't sign nothing you are not ready to actually agree to because the Judge is going to award it without question. Fact.
Contractual agreements are subject to the terms of the CONTRACT. Can you prove that the lease contract granted an in perpetuity use right to the Bundys and disallowed the landowner the right to transfer the land or change management protocols? No, you can't because the lease did not state that. The grazing leases have provisions in them reserving the rights of the property owner to transfer ownership of the property, change management and use protocols, and fee agreements, among other points. The Bundys signed those leases with the reserved right provisions to the landowners, and THEY (the Bundys) are now the ones that don't want to abide by the enforceable provisions of the contracts THEY voluntarily signed.
Your
reductio ad abs
Ever hear of a Rancher by the Name of Wayne Hage? This is a case where a federal judge ruled in favor of the Rancher's Estate and Property Rights and against the BLM's attempted abuses of power pior to the Bundy ordeal.
A Federal Judge had already ruled on these Bundy issues.
Hage v. United States
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/final-judgment-award-the-estate-of-wayne-70273/
Now do you remember what actually started the Bundy issue? They destroyed his Water Reservoir in the name of an Endangered Species. 
Sir, with all due respect, that Hage decision you cited is only the trial decision in what has been a very long, drawn out battle and the trial decision has been partially vacated and partially remanded on appeal. In short, the citation you provided is not binding law any more so than would be the trial court decisions ruling against the 2A in the original [i]Heller and
McDonald cases.
See here for a synopsis on the Hage cases -
synopsis on Hage litigation , and here for the most recent decision from the Appeals Court on the Hage litigation -
link to January 2016 decision 
