It seems somewhat straight forward and to the point, Also it does not say the gov. has the right to ban, only to regulate money paid by the states for goods from elsewhere.
The Supreme Court has ruled that two portions give the feds power over everything and anything (which congress makes a law regulating).
The largest recent expansion and interpretation is in Gonzales v Raich, where the feds ruled that even something homemade, or homegrown, for private use, and never intended for sale to anyone at all in state or out of state, was still subject to federal jurisdiction.
(Many people get tied down by the subject matter of the specific case, not understanding what the question was regarding jurisdiction as it pertains to federal authority.)
This has been applied since then to everything from NFA firearms, to almost anything the feds wish to control.
Raich makes it clear that no longer does it actually have to even be involved in or move in interstate commerce, but even just remotely having even the tiniest perceived impact on commerce is enough. Even if never sold at all or transferred to another person in the state, never mind out of the state.
'To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;'
Has been applied to everything. In the Raich decision there was a few different legal arguments given in the majority decision, each giving power to control everything in a different way.
The first was that even something homemade, or homegrown and never sold (and by extension even something just sold within the state) would effect the supply and demand of the product out of the state. For example making your own gun means you would not have to purchase as many elsewhere, and thus you are purchasing fewer, having an impact on the market.
This applies even for black market items, for in Raich they said even an illegal drug grown would result in less purchase of that drug from the black market, reducing the demand at the national level, and thus interstate commerce was being impacted. Bringing it under federal jurisdiction.
Obviously there is nothing this would not apply to.
Catching rain water in a bucket could mean you purchase less water, so even those rain drops could be put under federal jurisdiction if Congress wished.
The second most important logic expanded was done specifically by Scalia but is part of the majority decision, making it law as well.
He used this portion:
'To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper'
To justify almost anything and everything. Basically just in case something manages to slip through the excessive and overly broad interpretation above of the Commerce Clause, it can easily be applied through the "necessary and proper" portion.
Both logics cite previous cases to build up to their conclusion, but in reality they are new radical definitions, which extend beyond previous interpretations. (Like they cite Wickard v Filburn, but Filburn had entered into a contract with the government, and was receiving massive subsidies in order to abide by that contract, which he chose not to and claimed his personal use portion was outside of the contract. The government didn't just tell him what he could and could not do, he was specifically entered into a business arrangement and deemed to have violated his end of the deal.)
So with both of those interpretations of the Constitution together there is not a single thing outside the scope of federal authority.
The rain falling from the sky, the seed you plant in the ground, or the gun you build in your garage for personal use, they are all cemented under federal authority.
Now if you can manage to find some form of matter nobody sells, and which does not compete with or is used as a substitute or in lieu of something else, then just maybe that would be outside of the scope of the first logic given for the commerce clause, because it will not effect commerce or cause less purchasing of something else. I know of no such thing in existence.
But then of course it can just be deemed "necessary and proper" to regulate it if you do discover such a thing.
The 2nd Amendment however reduces how far this all encompassing power extends to firearms, and arms in general. How much does it reduce it? That has yet to be determined completely, but Heller is the current interpretation, now applied to all the states via McDonald.
Chances are it won't happen here, either.