Closed fists are considered weapons if it is a reasonable assumption that the perp doing the punching is stronger or more physically able than the person they are attacking.
Although punches were never thrown in this story, I say that to say that what is determined as a "life-threatening action" does not (and should not) be constituted as having to be attacked by some sort of weapon.
Above all this, I agree with a point made earlier. The dude is packing, and if he had proper training, knows he should never brandish his sidearm unless he intends to use it. He most CERTAINLY has a duty to remove himself from a potentially dangerous situation. He had the ability to avoid the confrontation all together, before the boyfriend even came out of the store. In my CCL class, we were taught that brandishing should obviously be the last resort, meaning if you could avoid a situation, then you should avoid it (aka going into seedy areas of town, carrying in a seedy establishment, etc.) Edit: Now, had the old man stopped arguing and walked inside, then the boyfriend came after him to retaliate, then this would be an easy call.
I think you have to look at the whole picture here. The old man had a right to pull after being assaulted by a larger, stronger person. He honestly was probably afraid for his life. But he should have never put himself in that situation voluntarily. It'll be up to the judge to decide if they look at it small-scale or large-scale as far as the incident as a whole.
