He very well could have been grabbing the rifle to save at least some part of his collection from the flames. The Chief very well could have been jumping the gun, so to speak, on claiming the guy was going to aim it at him at all.
Think about it. Why would you want to point an un-loaded gun at someone? To scare them off? With all the LOADED guns in the house, if he had wanted to, he could just as easily have grabbed one of those if his intent was in line with the Chief's accusation.
Because you're trying to get the fire-chief, who has no idea if the weapon is loaded or not, to back off? Why would you want to tell the fire chief he has no right to remove him from his burning home? They're trying to to their job and save his home, and that's all they're trying to do, and they don't need idiot civilians getting underfoot in the process. That's the real question here. A responsible, reasonable gun collector who had his head screwed on straight would be outside the home telling the fire chief, "I have a large gun collection in there. It's all legal. Please do your job and don't mess up my guns." That's what a right-minded citizen would say. But no...here we have some fruit-loop "defending" his burning home against the eeeeeeevil fire department, of all things. The Founding Fathers would have let the fire department into their homes.
Did the fire chief know that?
You can be charged with armed robbery, even if you're using a toy gun.