We are discussing the law and legality of an action, so I'm not going to "quit reading the law". I'm not being rude either, but that makes no sense.
The likelihood or history of arrest or prosecution is not the bar-setter for what is legal or illegal. "You can get away with it" is not the same as "It is not illegal".
As I stated before, using a firearm in your home for self defense is not the same as wearing/carrying one about your person in anticipation of having to use it.
Show me the case law that defines, contradicts or clarifies 1272. Show me case law that states or indicates that an individual may open carry inside the home or on "rural property" while "tending land" or for any other purpose not already exempted by the written law.
The below quotation is from the Pierce case, from the dissenting justice, where the defendant was convicted for carrying a revolver in his yard and inside his home:
"DAVENPORT, J. (dissenting). I cannot concur in the views of the majority opinion, wherein it holds that the defendant could carry the pistol he was carrying from room to room in his home but could not carry it into his yard, the curtilage of his home. Section 26, art. 2, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, is as follows: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.""
It seems to say that even the majority, which upheld the conviction, believed that Pierce could carry the revolver in his home but NOT on the yard or curtilage.
I would agree that it does nothing to authorize the carrying of a firearm outside on your property.
Michael Brown