Does the term "incendiary device" have a specific meaning in the Penal Code?

The People further argue that the term "incendiary device" has a specific meaning in the Penal Code, and therefore the term is not vague or overbroad. We disagree. The mere existence of a definition in the Penal Code is insufficient to cure an unconstitutionally vague or broad term. For example, in People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615 (Lopez), the appellate court considered a probation condition that provided: " 'The defendant is not to be involved in any gang activities or associate with any gang members, nor wear or possess, any item of identified gang clothing, including: any item of clothing with gang insignia, moniker, color pattern, bandanas, jewelry with any gang significance, nor shall the defendant display any gang insignia, moniker, or other markings of gang significance on his/her person or property as may be identified by Law Enforcement or the Probation Officer.' " (Id. at p. 622.) The defendant challenged the probation condition on the basis that the condition was unconstitutionally vague. (Id. at p. 623.) The appellate court agreed, modifying the probation condition to include a definition of "gang." (Id. at p. 638.) The court noted that though the word "gang" certainly had "sinister implications," it also had "considerable benign connotations." (Id. at p. 631.)