Does Section 12301 of the California Code of Civil Procedure allow the term 'bomb' to be interpreted as a destructive device?

Secondly, the trial court's construction did not violate the rule of interpretation set down in Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 59--60, 195 P.2d 1. This rule is violated only if an [57 Cal.App.3d 258] unconstitutional construction is placed on a statute when a constitutional one was available. Since we have concluded below that the term 'bomb' is not vague either on its face or as construed, there was no unconstitutional construction placed on the legislation.

Thirdly, the construction made did not violate the rule of interpretation set down in People v. Moroney (1944) 24 Cal.2d 638, 642--643, 150 P.2d 888. Although the destructive devices named in subdivisions (a)(1) through (a)(4) of section 12301, with the possible exception of 'bomb,' are either projectile devices or projectile-throwing devices, the same is not necessarily true of the device in subdivision (a) (5). This device, apparently a 'Molotov Cocktail,' is often thrown, but need not be. Thus, the term 'bomb' need not be interpreted to mean a projectile bomb in order to harmonize it with the rest of the section.