Why?
Do we have reason to believe that the legal exposure of one who purposely exhibits or displays a weapon to another person without lawful justification would necessary be limited to the charge of "brandishing"?
In the sticky thread linked in Post #32, the variety in the ways that such an action might be addressed was discussed.
Whether the state would be able or even attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor committed a crime of any kind is far from predictable. One problem is that his words here might well work against him in a defense of justification.
A more realistic risk, as scaatylobo has pointed out, is that, had the incident been reported, and with today's technology one should not bet otherwise, his actions could have led to what might have been an unpleasant law enforcement action--at best.
The OK links on open carry by permitted nonresidents are not entirely clear; the previously cited AG opinion indicates that it is not permitted, but other sections indicate otherwise.
Under the circumstances described by the OP, I most certainly would have armed myself. Had I been confident that my carrying openly would have been lawful, I most probably would have elected, again under those circumstances, to carry openly.
I would hope that my actions would not be subject to an unfavorable interpretation.
One of the common things about discussions here is that people tend to see the armed citizen as the "good guy" and everyone else a a potential threat. In reality, however, that will remain to be seen, and it will be determined by others on the basis of evidence available after the fact. That evidence will include the actions and statements of the armed citizen. After the dust settles, the other folks may turn out to have been "good guys", and an inappropriate action or statement on the part of the armed citizen can turn him into a "bad guy" very effectively.
