On his radio program Tuesday, Glenn shared his thoughts on one of the biggest stories that's been flooding the media outlets thus far in 2016.

Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son were charged with arson for setting fires that spread to public land in 2001 and 2006. The government used an anti-terrorism statute to secure its convictions.

"I support the Hammonds," Glenn said, while making it clear he is not a fan of the tactics of Ammon Bundy and others protesting their incarceration.

He explained the statutes authorities relied on to convict the Hammonds were put in place after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

"What they were going after was, you go in and shoot up a federal building, you go in and set it on fire, we've got you for five years. That's what they were trying to go after," Glenn said. "Not somebody who is trying to stop a fire on their own land, or even, quite honestly, somebody who is trying to cover their tracks."

What do you think?

Listen to the segment and share your reaction in the comments section below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: I support the Hammonds. Now, Stu is telling me that he thinks there is testimony in the court case from the Hammonds' relatives that show that they were poaching.

STU: Yeah, actually Jeffy had sent around a bunch of articles yesterday, one of which indicated that one of their relatives had testified -- they had several quotes from these guys, saying that that is why they set the fires.

GLENN: To cover their track.

STU: Illegal deer poaching or whatever.

PAT: So it wasn't this innocuous thing to prevent forest fires.

STU: I believe that's what their claim was.

PAT: Huh.

STU: And, look, I think that's kind of separate from this. In that, even if they did something absolutely wrong, it's still unfair to somebody to sentence them for a crime, have them exit prison, resume their life, and say, "Oh, by the way, you're going back to prison for the same crime."

PAT: Right.

GLENN: I have to tell you, you're living on 6,000 acres and a deer happens to cross a fence, I now can't shoot it because it's crossed a fence. I mean, it's a different world out there. It's just a different world. Now, I'm not going to shoot it because I know I shoot a deer, it crosses the fence, I'm in trouble. And I don't know anybody who would do that. However, you're on 6,000 acres of land and if you're getting your food that way and you're shooting across a fence, for the love of Pete.

STU: I mean, again, the case is tough. And you're right. I don't live in that world, and I don't understand the world of the western rancher at all, to be perfectly frank about it. I'm just telling you what their case was, which they said they said it -- so they knew -- they knew they were committing -- doing something wrong, that's why they set the fire.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And while they set the fire, they did not alert any of the authorities who were out there with firefighters fighting another fire. So, you know, their accusation was they put other firefighters in danger because they were --

JEFFY: I think that was the second fire.

STU: Yeah, it was two separate fires.

JEFFY: There's two separate fires.

GLENN: But I also heard the testimony said that the firemen -- some firemen said that isn't true, that they actually helped them, that it actually helped put the fire out. Post.

STU: It's hard to drill down. They were convicted of the crime. But that doesn't -- again, that doesn't excuse this.

GLENN: I think the first judge was right. It would have been cruel and unusual punishment to give them five years for this crime. Cruel and unusual. And the only reason why it's five years is because of 9/11.

STU: Yeah. Oklahoma City.

GLENN: Oklahoma City. It would not have been this if it wasn't for Oklahoma City. They were trying to be tough. What they were going after was, you go in and shoot up a federal building, you go in and set it on fire, we've got you for five years. That's what they were trying to go after. Not somebody who is trying to stop a fire on their own land, or even, quite honestly, somebody who is trying to cover their tracks --

PAT: Because they shot a deer.

GLENN: Because they shot a deer. That's not terrorism, for the love of Pete.

STU: Obviously not.

GLENN: And I like the way the Hammonds seem to be handling this. They have asked people, the Bundys, "Go home. Go home. We're reporting for our sentence on Monday." They did yesterday. They're going to be heard in front of a court tomorrow. I think they're handling this the right way myself. I actually have respect for the Hammonds.

PAT: Yeah, they didn't condone this taking over the federal building. Of course, it's more of a federal shack, really.

GLENN: Yeah, it's not really a federal building.

PAT: I mean, they make it sound like it's in the middle of downtown Portland, like they took over a highrise. It's this dumpy, little shack out in the middle of nowhere. Thirty miles from a tiny, little town that's in the middle of nowhere.

JEFFY: But that's a different argument, right?

PAT: Yeah, that's a different argument.

JEFFY: The BLM overreach is a different argument than what they're -- I mean, that's what they're fighting for, is the overreach of the land management.

PAT: Yeah. Supposedly 30 or 100 ranches have been taken from their owners by the federal government in 100 years.

JEFFY: I know. We're having it here in Texas.

GLENN: But we're having it here in Texas too.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: The federal government is overreaching. People in the east don't understand this. Utah is 80 percent BLM land. 80 percent owned by the federal government. That's insane.

Featured Image: A sign is posted on a fence at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters on January 5, 2016 near Burns, Oregon. An armed anti-government militia group continues to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Headquarters as they protest the jailing of two ranchers for arson. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)