Ultimately, I never support any acts of terrorism perpetrated by anyone. However, I don't think this comes very close to terrorism, YET.
I am a gun owner. Let me get that out there, right now. I own a pistol, and in short order, I look to own one or two more firearms. Yes, I tend to lean towards the conservative side of things, but understand that I DO NOT blindly subscribe to anything, left or right. I choose to study a given situation/case/whatever, and make up my own mind.
As of this time, all I can say about this is, it smacks of a Ruby Ridge kind of situation, without the violence (Yet).
However, as a true patriot of this great country, I can say that there is a growing ass of people that are getting more and more fed up with the overreach exhibited by the government. As far as these patriotic people go, any people feel that they're being pushed beyond the breaking point, and something has to change. This is what I see as the impetus behind this move.
As far as the court's decision goes, my knee-jerk reaction to it is to say that double-jeopardy should apply, that these men should've been seen as serving time and paying their due to society. The notion of 'federal' guidelines in sentencing should've been left to the wayside, because if the guidelines were so important, they should've been enforced during the original trial/sentencing phase.
Federal courts have a long history of cherry-picking cases to show the hard-line with. Many who need severe penalties go with light sentences, while others that don't deserve it get harder time. It's just an historical fact.
Burning 130 acres in an effort to safeguard against wildfires is rather ridiculous. The fact that it was on federal land makes this a high-profile case, and the feds want to show themselves flexing their muscle. Were this private land, it would've been seen as good land-management. The key in all this is 'Federal' land.
Again, let me say this. I AM NOT a knee-jerk Right-winger. If I were, I wouldn't even be on this site.