No, that would keep it the Old Covenant: a change of location does not make "new". To be new, well, it has to be new, as-in completely new. Therefore, the law that accompanies the New Covenant also had to change from Old Covenant law. The law of the Old Covenant makes no provision for mercy and grace but only judgment for those who seek to be justified by it, and the blood of bulls and goats, which sacrifice was demanded by that law, could never take away sins. With the New Covenant came a new priesthood and a new priesthood demanded a change of law (not a change to its location). For those whom God chose to place under the New Covenant - solely by being placed under it - their sins are forgiven and they become saved. For them the satisfying of any law is not demanded because Christ already achieved that on their behalf.
[Heb 7:11-19 KJV]
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
