In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress' authority to regulate under the clause, and second analyzed the ban's prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce".[23]:8–9[24]:12 It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus'".[23]:9[24]:14